Air Date: May 8, 2026

FULL SHOW

SEGMENTS

Willing to End Fossil Fuels


View the page for this story

The first gathering of a new international “coalition of the willing” to transition away from fossil fuels recently took place in Colombia. It’s a separate event from the UN COP climate negotiations and was born in part out of frustration over fossil fuel friendly nations like the US, Russia, China, and Saudi Arabia stalling the COP process. Rodrigo Estrada, Senior Climate Advisor at Greenpeace International, was there and joins Host Aynsley O’Neill to share the takeaways and next steps. (12:52)

Coastal Damage Cases Move to Federal Court


View the page for this story

In 2025, a Louisiana jury awarded Plaquemines Parish $745 million to repair environmental damages and land loss caused by oil giant Chevron and its subsidiary Texaco over many decades. But in April the US Supreme Court ruled 8 to 0 that the claims belong in federal court. In his majority opinion Justice Clarence Thomas found that Chevron’s work producing aviation fuel for the United States military during World War II made them federal agents beyond the reach of state courts. Blaine LeCesne, a distinguished professor and an associate dean at the Loyola University New Orleans College of Law, explained the case with Living on Earth’s Paloma Beltran. (09:45)

AJR Rock Star Recruits for Climate Action


View the page for this story

The indie-pop band AJR is known for its high-energy anthems and along with growing their fan base of mostly young adults, AJR is growing the climate movement. At sold-out concerts, they offer fans ways to plug in to climate advocacy. AJR bassist Adam Met also teaches sustainability as an adjunct at Columbia and is cofounder of the nonprofit Planet Reimagined, and he speaks with Host Jenni Doering about engaging fans to sign petitions, join local groups and, most importantly, vote. (10:13)

Nostalgic Mothering: "Saturnine" Poem


View the page for this story

Aimee Nezhukumatathil, author of the collection of poems Night Owl, joined us in April for poetry month. And in this poem, called “Saturnine,” Aimee recalls a moment when her then-seven-year-old son announced his plan to move to Saturn, reminding her that one day, she’d have to let her little boy fly from the nest. Aimee Nezhukumatathil speaks with Host Jenni Doering. (04:10)

Major National Climate Victory in S. Korea


View the page for this story

The recipient of the 2026 Goldman Environmental Prize for Asia is South Korean activist Borim Kim. She and her organization, Youth 4 Climate Action, sued the South Korean government on the grounds that it was putting future generations at risk. And in August of 2024, they won at the South Korean Constitutional Court, making this case the first successful youth-driven climate litigation in Asia. Borim Kim joins Host Aynsley O’Neill to discuss this historic decision. (10:17)

Show Credits and Funders

Show Transcript

260508 Transcript

HOSTS: Jenni Doering, Aynsley O’Neill

GUESTS: Rodrigo Estrada, Borim Kim, Blaine LeCesne, Adam Met, Aimee Nezhukumatathil

[THEME]

DOERING: From PRX – this is Living on Earth.

[THEME]

DOERING: I’m Jenni Doering.

O’NEILL: And I’m Aynsley O’Neill.

Nations in a “coalition of the willing” gather to dream of a fossil fuel-free world.

ESTRADA: Do we continue on the same pathway of fossil fuels: extraction, exploitation, misery and war? Or, do we take another pathway, which is on a more stable, more peaceful scenario, that it’s actually within reach.

DOERING: Also, Adam Met of the indie-pop band AJR on building a climate movement among fans.

MET: Every single place, we had thousands of fans participating in these actions, and now they've come to expect it. There really is a demand from fans not to be shallow about this -- to give people real, concrete ways to participate civically or politically.

DOERING: That and more, this week on Living on Earth. Stick around!

Back to top

[NEWSBREAK MUSIC: Boards Of Canada “Zoetrope” from “In A Beautiful Place Out In The Country” (Warp Records 2000)]

[THEME]

Willing to End Fossil Fuels

DOERING: From PRX and the Jennifer and Ted Stanley Studios at the University of Massachusetts Boston, this is Living on Earth, I’m Jenni Doering.

O’NEILL: And I’m Aynsley O’Neill.

The first gathering of a new international “coalition of the willing” to transition away from fossil fuels took place in Santa Marta, Colombia at the end of April. It’s a separate event from the UN COP climate negotiations and it was born in part out of frustration over fossil fuel-friendly nations stalling the COP process. So, for this conference, nations seen as spoilers, like the United States, Russia, China, India, and Saudi Arabia were specifically not invited. Jointly convened by Colombia and the Netherlands, this event brought together 57 countries and the European Union, representing roughly 30% of global energy demand. Also present were civil society organizations and representatives of indigenous peoples. The conference was aimed at accelerating political momentum for a just energy transition and closing the gap between discussions and concrete action when it comes to international climate negotiations. Rodrigo Estrada is a Senior Climate Advisor at Greenpeace International who was there in Santa Marta. Rodrigo, welcome to Living on Earth!

The United States, China, Russia, India, and many other countries were not invited to the coalition event, given their history of inhibiting climate action at the international level. The interactive map above shows the last 60 years of global fossil fuel usage, measured in terawatt-hours. (Image: Our World In Data, ourworldindata.org, CC BY 4.0)

ESTRADA: Thank you so much for having me. It's really a pleasure, and I'm glad that I'm able to share a little bit more with you of what was happening down there in Colombia.

O'NEILL: So tell us what the energy was like there.

ESTRADA: Well, it was actually fantastic, because being a coalition of like-minded states and like-minded people, it was really a breath of fresh air in terms of what it means to be in those spaces. You having international negotiations and you know, when it comes to politics, there's always something that you might not necessarily agree with, or you don't see eye to eye with, and in this particular case, because everyone was there with the mission of kicking off a serious conversation about how to transition away from fossil fuels and many find that hard to believe, but it had never actually happened at that level, so the spirits in there were high. People were just like, really hopeful. Our conclusion was that it was really that breath of fresh air, like, you know, it really felt that we were heading somewhere.

O'NEILL: And now this conference went on for, you know, a number of days. For you Rodrigo, what were the main takeaways from this?

ESTRADA: So to me, the first one was the establishment of this advisory scientific panel on the transition, which is meant to be this advisory body that it's going to provide states with feedback and ideas on how to actually make these work. And this is also thought to be a complement to what the International Panel on Climate Change is up to. They look into the modeling of weather and climate impacts and where things are headed emissions-wise, whereas other panel would also be looking into, what are the economic imperatives, what are the social impacts, what needs to happen from a biodiversity perspective, and so that is really great, because it signifies that we're really looking at a transformation on how this is being approached. It's not that we're, you know, like unplugging fossil fuels to plug in something else, but rather that we are getting into these different way of doing things all together for energy, transportation and other systems.

O'NEILL: And now I do feel like the conference is sort of taking place at this very notable time in global history and conflict, because the US-Israel joint war against Iran has resulted in elevated oil and gas prices. It's really brought to the forefront just how dangerous it is for our society, our global society, to be so reliant on fossil fuels. What was said about this war during the Santa Marta conference? To what extent did this discussion about energy motivate or push forward this conference?

ESTRADA: There's a phrase that I really like to use in this case, which is, while we're talking about phasing out fossil fuels, that means also that we're trying to phase out the inherent stability and conflict that comes with the limited resources and scarce resources that fossil fuels represent, and we're actually facing in renewables and the inherent stability that they can bring, because it's a very different way in which they are distributed. Every region of the world has different access to different resources, so it's a more distributed and diverse approach. And that's from the Greenpeace side of things, how we were approaching it, like we really see how this conflict and stability, not just on what's happening right now in Iran and Lebanon, but elsewhere, there are many other places where we see these conflicts playing out, where there is that underlying element of fossil fuels That's like in the back there always, you know, Ukraine, Yemen, you name it, it's really there. And so what was actually quite again, refreshing, just going back to what I was saying earlier, is that in the conversations with the government, in their speeches, in the working groups, they were really bringing that to the fore. They were really thinking on this is a moment in which we sort of get to decide which road we take. Do we continue on the same pathway of fossil fuels, extraction, exploitation, misery and war, or do we take another pathway which is on a more stable, more peaceful, more diverse scenario, that it's actually within reach, that that was another really refreshing element of it to really understand and recognize, across the board, that it is reachable. It's not some ideal vision that we're somehow miraculously waiting for. It's there.

O'NEILL: And now there are several emerging economies that are in sort of a tricky place here. They're trying to push progressive policies on climate and environment, but they themselves are dependent on fossil fuels. Colombia, the host country, is one such example. What were some of the concerns that Colombia and these other countries might have expressed during this conference?

ESTRADA: That's a great question, because it was very patent, first of all, that there was a very strong vocal segment of the participants that were coming from the so-called "Global South", these developing economies, or these places that still face strong or very complicated issues, with poverty, with hunger, these social elements and where this idea of development has somehow been tied to fossil fuels. And what were they saying? Well, we have realized that this is not necessarily what we think it is, right? We have enough proof to show that this is not where things are supposed to be happening. So then, what is it that we're actually supposed to do? And that's where the conversations became really, really interesting for me, because it was suddenly, okay, how are we going to break free from the situation that's holding us back? And that was touching on multiple elements, you know? On the financial side, they were talking about debt and how that sort of keeps them on the same wheel of you know, we have to exploit our natural resources and allow for more extraction so that we can repay these debt that, you know, it's never ending, type of thing.

O'NEILL: And I mean, on the complete opposite end, there are also a number of developed economies that were at the conference as well. I think the European Union, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, to name a few. What was their role in these talks on so much of this opposite end?

ESTRADA: It was quite interesting as well to see what they were up to because, you know, one of the co-hosts was the Netherlands, right? And it's a country that has this gigantic oil company, Shell. So all of them, France was in there as well, and so they were mostly on the side of also trying to figure out what they should do because even for them, there was this conversation of, what do we really need to do here, and how are we supposed to approach this, because they are also looking into a transition of their own systems. And of course, for them, because of the easy access to finance, etc., technology as well, you know, skills, etc., they sort of have it easier but that doesn't mean that it's happening. So one of the positive surprises, I would say, of the conference was that when you know France, the French government showed up, they actually brought forward a roadmap on how they are planning to make the transition in France. And of course, there are things in that roadmap that need to be looked at with a finer tooth comb to make sure that they actually meet the level of ambition that a developed country like France has to commit with. So it's, I think, really important that all of us find solutions. It's going to look different in different regions. And then there is that other element of international solidarity and support, because there are countries that do not have access to the resources, have not benefited as much, even if they are the origin of these resources.

O'NEILL: So I mean, the road is open from here, what are the next steps to sort of keep up any momentum that this conference is generating?

ESTRADA: Well, I think that the wonderful thing about it is that there are multiple parallel things happening. So first, really connected to this coalition of like-minded states. They agreed to have a second conference that's going to be co-hosted by Tuvalu and Ireland by the end of April in 2027, so that's one clear way forward in which, in the meantime, countries of the coalition are expected to work in their national roadmaps, again, just to show how they are actually going to do it. But at the same time, because, you know, the Brazilian Presidency of the UN climate talks was actually there, very active, they are going to bring back to the UNFCCC process, which is a UN climate convention, to have these conversations in the fora that correspond to that. So that is going to be, you know, the subsidiary bodies conversation that it's going to happen in Bonn in June, and then at the actual Conference of the Parties that it's going to take place in Türkiye by the end of the year this year. And then we also have this wonderful advisory panel, the scientific advisory panel, which is going to kick off and start working on providing those insights that they need.

O'NEILL: Rodrigo, what would you say gives you hope about this “coalition of the willing”, this conference and as I said, the road that's open ahead?

ESTRADA: Well, I was just having this exact conversation a few hours ago today with my colleagues, and one of the reflections that we had is like, we are seeing things that we had only hoped for a few months ago. So this is really something that is really bringing a different energy, a different vibe, a different way of working. Of course, we still need to see what results come out of it. Like I am dying to see the roadmaps that different countries are going to bring forward. I was just mentioning that France already presented theirs. So I'm really, you know, hopeful that these things are going to pick up. I'm also really looking forward to see what the scientific advisory panel comes up with, and the fact that these spaces and these conversations are going to continue, that's also something that gives me a lot of hope, because that means that governments and people saw value in them. And it was not just an exercise of, you know, goodwill and come together and shake everyone's hands and then go back home and do nothing. It was more of like, let's come together again, let's make sure that we follow through with this. So that's what gives me hope.

O'NEILL: Rodrigo Estrada is a senior climate advisor at Greenpeace International. Rodrigo, thank you so much for joining us today.

ESTRADA: Thank you so much to you and to your audience, and I hope that we talk soon again.

Related links:
- The Guardian | “Could Santa Marta Climate Talks Mark Ground Zero in Push to Ditch Fossil Fuels?”
- Carbon Brief | “Santa Marta: Key Outcomes From First Summit on ‘Transitioning Away’ From Fossil Fuels”
- Greenpeace | “Santa Marta Conference to End Fossil Fuels a Landmark Moment for Climate and Energy Stability”

Back to top

[MUSIC: AJR, “The Good Part” on The Click, BMG Rights Management (US) LLC]

DOERING: Coming up, how indie-pop band AJR is turning fans into climate activists.

AJR: Can we skip to the good part?

DOERING: Keep listening to Living on Earth.

[MUSIC: AJR, “The Good Part” on The Click, BMG Rights Management (US) LLC]

ANNOUNCER: Support for Living on Earth comes from the Waverley Street Foundation, working to cultivate a healing planet with community-led programs for better food, healthy farmlands, and smarter building, energy and businesses.

[CUTAWAY MUSIC: AJR, “The Good Part (Official Instrumental)” on The Click, BMG Rights Management (US) LLC]

Coastal Damage Cases Move to Federal Court

DOERING: It’s Living on Earth, I’m Jenni Doering.

O’NEILL: And I’m Aynsley O’Neill.

In 2025, a Louisiana jury awarded Plaquemines Parish 745 million dollars to repair environmental damages and land loss caused by oil giant Chevron and its subsidiary Texaco over many decades. But in April the US Supreme Court ruled 8 to 0 that the case belongs in federal court. In his majority opinion Justice Clarence Thomas chose a broad interpretation of the federal statute in question. He found that Chevron’s work producing aviation fuel for the United States military during World War II made them federal agents beyond the reach of state courts. Based on the rules of procedure, the court did not and could not rule on the merits of the coastal damage claims. But in concurring with the process decision, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that Justice Thomas’s opinion improperly opened the door to far less clear-cut cases. Blaine LeCesne, a distinguished professor and an associate dean at the Loyola University New Orleans College of Law, spoke with Living on Earth’s Paloma Beltran.

BELTRAN: What kind of damage did Plaquemines Parish claim from oil extraction?

LECESNE: They're claiming, and with substantial science to back those claims up, that the oil and gas infrastructure used by these major oil companies drilling since World War Two and up through the 1970s and particularly the use of canals that were dredged to facilitate oil production activities resulted in 30 to 59 percent of Louisiana's total land loss. That's a massive amount of land. And so Louisiana's coastline, in essence, has lost over 2,000 square miles of land since the 1930s, much of it attributable to the practices of the oil industry in extracting oil and producing oil in Southeast Louisiana.

BELTRAN: So in this case, were there any issues before World War Two that were not federally connected? In other words, was Texaco, now Chevron, engaging in detrimental oil production practices not connected to the federal government?

LECESNE: Well, yes, the answer is yes. This is how they produced oil, and so it was cheaper and quicker to use navigation canals, as opposed to building roads and other infrastructure to facilitate the supply vessels and other equipment moving from the Gulf of Mexico onto the land. So the canals were the cheapest and most expedient and easiest way to gain that access, and so they had always used canals. They used canals before World War Two, and they probably continued to use those canals, if not even dredge more canals after World War Two ended. So that was just the modus operandi for these oil companies to produce oil in the most time-efficient and cost-efficient manner possible.

BELTRAN: So this was sent to federal court on an 8 to 0 Supreme Court decision. Why did Justice Thomas interpret the language or relate it to so broadly?

LECESNE: So Justice Thomas, writing for the majority of the court, took a very broad view of what the phrase, “relate to” means. He literally took a dictionary definition, which is the broadest possible definition of “relate to”, because you can very easily make an argument that any particular thing relates to another thing. In this case, you can very easily say that oil production relates to the refinement of aviation fuel, because crude oil was an essential feed stock to refine aviation fuel. So by saying even an indirect connection is enough, it really opens the gates and broadens the interpretation of that phrase, which would allow all of the other defendants to now say that their activities relate to their wartime obligations to produce aviation fuel.

BELTRAN: But liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a concurring opinion that challenges conservative Justice Clarence Thomas's interpretation. Can you please explain Justice Jackson's concurring opinion? You know, what was her focus, and does it help or hurt the state and local plaintiffs going forward?

LECESNE: Justice Jackson took a far more constrained view of what the term “relate to” actually means, and she said it requires a closer causal connection, or causal nexus, between the duties that you were performing under the contract and the harmful practices that resulted. Unfortunately for the Parish, there's not much that they can do with this opinion, the concurring opinion of Justice Jackson, because the majority opinion stands. And with that majority opinion stands the broad interpretation of “relating to.” So, the damage has been done by the majority, and that cannot be undone until you have a different configuration of the U.S Supreme Court. And that's why this decision is so troubling, because companies now have a roadmap to escape scrutiny in a state court lawsuit, and they can seek a far more favorable environment in the federal court system, and most importantly, they can now have access to the federal contractor immunity defense. So that defense essentially says that anyone acting at the direction of the federal government is in essence a surrogate federal officer, and they are deserving of the same immunity that would be afforded to the federal government. These federal officers would also be entitled to that immunity, even if they lose on the merits. In other words, even if the jury in the federal court proceeding says, yes, we do find that your practices, there was a causal connection between your practices and the damage caused, and we think you should pay for it. None of that is going to matter, because under the federal contractor immunity defense, they are immune and can't be cast in judgment.

BELTRAN: To what extent were the Parish's lawyers thinking about big money here, you know, big money that they would make if the Parish won the case? So that's why it was an overly broad case. Maybe a narrower case might not yield such big numbers and fees. And were the lawyers hired on a contingency basis?

LECESNE: I believe they were. The Parish would not have the resources to fund litigation this complex, and that requires this much time and resources to successfully litigate. This has been going on for 13 years, so you can imagine what a billable hour system would look like. It would be unattainable for the Parish. So the Parish is not overreaching here. I mean the allegations that they're making and the damages that they're seeking align with the damage caused by the activity that the Parish is alleging caused that damage. So the fact that there are huge numbers here is not a function of them being unreasonable in what they're asking. And in fact, the jury looked at the damages in that one case and calculated it to be approximately $744 million. Now the Parish, again, is in an existential crisis, given that they've lost almost 50 percent of their land as a result of this. So they need the funding desperately to try to restore some of the land that was lost, or at least minimize future land loss as a result of those activities. And so this award, that is now essentially gone, would have been a huge influx of necessary funding for Louisiana's Coastal Master Plan. Louisiana has in place a long-term plan to restore its coast as best you can, but that requires billions and billions and billions of dollars that the state doesn't have. It has some of those funds, some of which were actually generated by the BP oil spill. They have some funding, but there's still a several billion dollar shortfall. So this would have gone a long way to shortening or decreasing that gap in funding that Louisiana needs for its coastal master plan. That master plan is, frankly, essential for much of the state to be habitable in the future. Without some effort to restore the coastline, the Gulf will continue to encroach upon Louisiana's dwindling landmass, and much of Southeast Louisiana will no longer be habitable.

O’NEILL: Blaine LeCesne is Associate Dean and distinguished professor at the Loyola University New Orleans College of Law and spoke with Living on Earth’s Paloma Beltran. As we go to broadcast, Plaquemines and other parishes in Louisiana have begun the process of re-filing their complaints against oil companies in federal court.

Related links:
- Louisiana Illuminator | “Supreme Court Rules Plaquemines Coastal Lawsuit Against Chevron Belongs in Federal Court”
- Read the published opinion at the U.S. Supreme Court website
- SCOTUS Blog | “Court Unanimously Sides With Oil and Gas Companies in Suit Over Damage to Louisiana Coast”
- Bloomberg Law News | “Chevron Prevails in US Supreme Court Wetlands Venue Fight”

Back to top

[MUSIC: AJR, “Bang!” on OK ORCHESTRA, BMG Rights Management (US) LLC]

AJR Rock Star Recruits for Climate Action

DOERING: The indie-pop band AJR is known for high-energy anthems like “Weak,” “Burn the House Down,” and the chart-topping “Bang!”

AJR: So put your best face on everybody
Pretend you know this song everybody
Come hang, let’s go out with a bang
Bang! bang! bang!

DOERING: Along with growing their fan base of mostly young adults, AJR is growing the climate movement. At sold-out concerts, they offer fans ways to plug in to climate advocacy, with tables set up for signing petitions, calling representatives and information about getting involved in local groups. AJR stands for Adam, Jack, and Ryan Met, brothers who founded the band together. Eldest brother and bassist Adam Met also has a PhD in human rights law and sustainable development, teaches sustainability as an adjunct at Columbia and is cofounder of the nonprofit Planet Reimagined. He joins me now – Adam, welcome to Living on Earth!

MET: Thank you so much for having me, very happy to be here.

DOERING: So how did you first become interested in raising awareness about the climate?

MET: Yeah, so when I was in high school, they offered a human rights class. During that class, we actually took a field trip to go see Mary Robinson speak. Mary Robinson is the former president of Ireland. She was the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. She made that case for the relationship between climate and human rights, and ever since then, I was just a fan of hers, in awe of everything that she did. I studied this in undergrad, doing my master's, doing my PhD. So that was one piece of it, and the other side of it is being on the road as a musician. I'm in a band called AJR, and I see both the impacts of climate in many cities that I go to, but also fans coming up to me all the time, saying, I want to participate. I want to be part of this. What can I do?

DOERING: So as a musician, what are some of the similarities that you found between starting a band and producing music, and building a successful climate movement?

MET: Yeah. So on the music side, if you think about building a fan base, it really is one fan at a time. You have all of these different strategies, whether it's music or social media or live shows or merchandise, marketing campaigns—all of these different ways in for fans. And as we were building that fan community with AJR, I started to think about how we could use those same strategies in order to build effective movements. And so I borrowed a lot of AJR strategies in order to do this. And then I said, okay, this is not just an AJR thing—a lot of bands, a lot of artists, use all different strategies. What if we could take all those strategies, bring them down to their first principles, and reapply them to social movements?

DOERING: So you often use your AJR shows to encourage fans to take action in the fight against climate change, such as by providing opportunities for phone banking, signing petitions. How have your fans reacted to this?

MET: Honestly, the fans have been incredible. I'll give you a couple of examples. You know, when we pulled into Phoenix on our last full tour, it was 109 degrees out. Like, literally, 109 degrees out. So when we pulled into Phoenix, the action on site was to sign a petition to get the city council to release funds to combat extreme heat. It was something direct, something they could understand, and something that would impact their city. Every single place, we had thousands of fans participating in these actions, and now they've come to expect it. There really is a demand from artists not to be shallow about this, and from fans not to be shallow about this, to give people real, concrete ways to participate civically or politically.

DOERING: What is it about music and the concert setting that you think can make this so effective?

MET: There are not a lot of settings that can do what music does. When people gather in person, there's something that happens that's a sociological term called collective effervescence---

DOERING: Oh, that’s a beautiful term.

MET: Yeah, it's great, right? It was coined by the sociologist Emile Durkheim. And Durkheim wrote about this phrase in the religious context, and so when people were getting together to participate in religion. But it really does apply to music as well. You are there. You know almost none of the people that are in the same room as you, but you all have this shared vision and shared purpose and shared community when you're going to see a concert. You all sing along, dance along, etc. And I think one of the things that we've done really effectively is tap into that collective effervescence and apply it to other places. Most people use it for the music in and of itself, which is great, but there's real opportunity to apply it for social change.

DOERING: Tell us about the nonprofit that you also founded, Planet Reimagined. It seems like a large part of that group's work is centered around what you call "action research." Explain that term for us and how it's used to advocate for climate solutions.

MET: Yeah, so Planet Reimagined is an incubator. We incubate creative climate solutions, and we use this model called “action research.” We do academic-level research, hard-hitting research, peer-review level research, with an eye towards how can you implement it as fast as possible? So much research in the world is done, it's great, and it sits on a shelf for decades, and nobody uses it. A lot of the mRNA research around the COVID vaccine had sat on a shelf for forever, and it wasn't until it was actually needed for COVID that people went back to that research and started using it. Imagine if that research was done with an eye towards its usefulness, then we could have had so many health solutions over the last decades that are now being discovered today because we have that mRNA approach to healthcare. So that's very exciting. We have a large tech platform that can essentially take climate policies that work at the city level and help rewrite them for other cities, because there are so many cities that are doing amazing work because they can move a lot faster than the federal level. We have the concert work, like you said, and we have a handful of other projects that are being incubated as well..

DOERING: So hearing us talk, some people might think, all right, so, AJR's lyrics must talk a lot about climate, environment. That's not really the case. Is there a reason that you kind of avoid, or just don't want to go there with climate messaging in your music?

MET: So we've done all of the research, and injecting stories of climate, injecting information about climate into music, doesn't work. I've had so many people saying, oh, you need to write a climate anthem. That is so disingenuous, unless the artist is already so deep in that issue with their fans. The other piece of it is a lot of fans use music as an escape, and if you keep injecting social issues into music over and over and over again and all of these different types, it's not going to feel like an escape. However, there are ways to do it effectively. There are ways to do it that normalizes and creates almost a normative approach to climate action, or mental health, or any other issue that you want in music. Megan Thee Stallion does this really well. Doechii has done this really well, by just having it be a little piece of the song as part of your day-to-day. So we have a song called Inertia that was on our last album, and one of the lyrics in the song is, "I was gonna save the planet, but today I've got plans." And it's real, right? It makes sense, and it's something that other people are going through, and it just kind of is a little injection, but it's relatable, and it's something that people can understand. And it's not, "I was going to save the planet, but today I've got plans, but tomorrow I'm going to go recycle and buy an electric car and do all..." right? So it's it's really just injecting it in a way that fans see it as real, and not as trying to push them to do something.

DOERING: And that lyric is very self-aware, something we can relate to, of course.

MET: Exactly.

DOERING: So a large part of your fan base is youth. What role do you think younger generations have to play in the fight against climate change?

MET: We've seen all different ways for young people to participate, both on our tours and off. If you are 18, the number one thing that you can do is vote in local elections. Yes, of course, vote in the presidential and national and federal elections around the world, but local elections are happening every week now, it seems. And there are elections that have happened in the last few months that have come down to a single vote. There are elections that have come down to seven votes. There are elections that have been around 20 votes that make the difference. Those are school board elections. Those are mayoral elections. Those are city councils. They are places that make the decision about transportation, about how waste is picked up, about parking on streets, about zoning. All of those things are climate issues. So that's the number one thing you could do right now is look up, literally, go look up when your next local election is, make sure you're registered to vote, and go vote in that election. It's much more than every four years, and every two years. If you are under that age, you need to bully your parents into going to vote in those local elections. We had some young children on our tour who couldn't sign petitions and couldn't call their representatives, but we had them with clipboards running around the concerts, getting other people to do it, so you have the power to push the people in your family to take these kinds of actions.

DOERING: Adam Met is a climate activist, educator, and bassist of the indie pop band AJR. He's also the author of Amplify: How to Use the Power of Connection to Engage, Take Action and Build a Better World. Adam, thank you so much for being here.

MET: Thank you so much. This was fantastic.

Related links:
- Inside Climate News | “How a Rock Band Bassist Is Remixing Climate Activism”
- Learn more about Adam Met
- Purchase Amplify: How to Use the Power of Connection to Engage, Take Action, and Build a Better World and support Living on Earth and independent booksellers
- Learn more about AJR on their website

Back to top

[MUSIC: AJR, “Inertia” on The Maybe Man, AJR Productions LLC, under exclusive license to Mercury Records/Republic Records, a division of UMG Recording, Inc.]

AJR: I was gonna save the planet but today I got plans. I guess this is just what I am.

[MUSIC: AJR, “Inertia” on The Maybe Man, AJR Productions LLC, under exclusive license to Mercury Records/Republic Records, a division of UMG Recording, Inc.]

O’NEILL: Just ahead, youth climate power at the South Korean Constitutional Court. Stay tuned to Living on Earth!

ANNOUNCER: Support for Living on Earth comes from the estate of Rosamund Stone Zander - celebrated painter, environmentalist, and author of The Art of Possibility – who inspired others to see the profound interconnectedness of all living things, and to act with courage and creativity on behalf of our planet. Support also comes from Sailors for the Sea and Oceana. Helping boaters race clean, sail green and protect the seas they love. More information @sailorsforthesea.org.

[CUTAWAY MUSIC: AJR, “Inertia (Official Instrumental)” on The Maybe Man, AJR Productions LLC, under exclusive license to Mercury Records/Republic Records, a division of UMG Recording, Inc.]

Nostalgic Mothering: "Saturnine" Poem

O’NEILL: It’s Living on Earth, I’m Aynsley O’Neill.

DOERING: And I’m Jenni Doering.

For families with a high school senior, the month of May can be a bittersweet time of year. As colleges dole out acceptances (and rejections), many of those young people prepare to begin a new chapter. And their parents, perhaps, have to learn to let go. Aimee Nezhukumatathil, author of the collection of poems Night Owl, joined us in April for poetry month. And in this poem, called “Saturnine,” Aimee recalls a moment when her then-seven-year-old son announced his plan to move to Saturn, reminding her that one day, she’d have to let her little boy fly from the nest.

NEZHUKUMATATHIL: I think maybe some mothers would be like, oh, cute, haha. And I just, you know, I mean, that boy's mom was a poet, and all, and the one who stays up at night worrying and so that is just like the, almost the worst thing you could say as a seven-year-old. Oh, gosh, it's so dramatic. But it truly was like, I could feel my heart race, you know, like and "saturnine," I found out, you know, the origins of the kind of the most somber, morose god of Greek mythology, which is what the planet Saturn was named after. But to be "saturnine" means to be morose and brooding. So I just thought that was so interesting. This is my version of being saturnine.

"Saturnine"
for P

When you told me you wanted to live on Saturn,
my hands grew cold like all the blood rushed
to my heart to help it in its purple panic. I never

even thought of losing you until then. Silly, stupid
mother— arrogant from each moment you reached
for my hand, reached for my neck, lifted your belly

to mine, or begged me for a snack. My darling—
every season on Saturn lasts seven years. When you
announced your plan of living among all those

jumping yellow moons, we would have still been
in your first long summer— seven years of that
heat wave with ice pops staining your mouth.

Seven years of collecting flowers in a butterfly net
for my pillow. Seven years of lifting the windows
each morning, a small hallelujah to hear the cardinal

spin a song over your bed. When you told me not
to worry, you’d visit, you’d come back to me—
all I could think of was the black-sick of you tunneling

through space without me. How blue nebulas might
dampen your very good cheeks. I know it will come.
That day will come. But today, let’s enjoy the long summer.

Enjoy the mosquito bites, the little sandals chaos- flung
on the patio. Let’s see who can make the biggest, most brilliant
spray of light when we bite into our cobs of corn.

DOERING: Brooding and letting go a little bit, I think? Starting to realize that at some point you'll have to let go?

NEZHUKUMATATHIL: Yeah, yeah, it's so wild. It's, you know, in those moments, I couldn't even, even just that thought of college the first seven years is not even on my ra-, just literally not on my radar at all. So it was kind of a now, oh, my goodness, I can feel my my voice catch a little bit, you know, knowing that we're here. We're at that moment that I could still remember being on the couch with him at that moment when he's like, yeah, I'm going to Saturn, you know? I'm gonna live on Saturn. So that's where I'm gonna be when I grow up. And I'm like, oh my gosh. And truthfully, you know what I what I kind of realized in the revision of that poem is, sometimes that's what it feels like, like I can't believe he's not in this house. You know, he might as well be on Saturn. It feels so far away, and he's just a few hours away, but feels like he's in outer space.

DOERING: Poet Aimee Nezhukumatathil. Her poem "Saturnine" appears in her 2026 collection, Night Owl.

Related links:
- Learn more about Aimee Nezhukumatathil
- Listen to our full interview with Aimee about her book Night Owl: Poems

Back to top

[MUSIC: SZA, “Saturn” on SOSDeluxe:LANA, Top Dawg Entertainment, under exclusive license to RCA Records]

SZA: Dreaming of Saturn

[MUSIC: SZA, “Saturn” on SOSDeluxe:LANA, Top Dawg Entertainment, under exclusive license to RCA Records]

Major National Climate Victory in S. Korea

O’NEILL: We continue our coverage of the 2026 Goldman Environmental Prize Winners in Asia this week. Activist Borim Kim and her organization, Youth 4 Climate Action, sued the South Korean government on the grounds that its inadequate climate policies were putting the rights of future generations at risk. And in August of 2024, they won a historic decision at the South Korean Constitutional Court, making this case the first successful youth-driven climate litigation in Asia. Borim Kim joins us now. Welcome to Living on Earth, Borim, and congratulations on this Goldman Environmental Prize!

KIM: Annyeonghaseyo.

O'NEILL: So Borim, you grew up in Seoul, which is the capital of South Korea and one of the most densely populated cities in the world. Tell us how this shaped your understanding of environmental issues.

KIM (TRANSLATED): So yes, I was born and raised in Seoul, which is a very densely populated city, and I think I grew up thinking that I need to do something to protect the Earth or protect the environment on an individual level, rather than thinking of climate as a crisis. So I was practicing things like a vegetarian diet or trying to reduce waste. However, that all changed in 2018 when there was a terrible heat wave that came about in Korea. And at that time, I was living in a very old house, and I felt that the heat wave was a great threat to my existence. And the government was just telling the people to stay inside for their safety, however, I felt that that was not safe for us. So I started then to think of the climate crisis as a more existential threat than something that I could just respond to on my own, on an individual level. I saw that it was directly related to our human rights and recognize the government's responsibility in having to protect its own citizens.

O'NEILL: Well so you founded this group, Youth 4 Climate Action, which organizes and engages young people in the fight for climate solutions. When you organized this lawsuit against the South Korean government, what inspired that decision?

KIM (TRANSLATED): I think after that extreme heat wave in 2018, more and more people started to realize that the climate crisis is an actual threat to our lives. And at the same time, there were more scientific reports that came out speaking to the seriousness of the climate crisis. So more and more people understood the gravity of the situation. And when I was campaigning with my group to ask for change from policymakers, it was a very difficult process, and we tried to emphasize that the climate crisis is directly related to our own lives and our existence, and demanded change as first parties living with this crisis. And we recognize that the youth's voice is a fundamental voice, not only because they will have to live in the future and they will feel more of the effects of the climate crisis, but because also we can show them the long term accumulation of dangers that we have to be faced with. So we organized a super strike in Korea in line with the global climate strike. However, the actual change that came about from these actions were very minimal. Politicians would say, oh, we're doing this for the children, and want to take pictures with us, but it was just a photo op. So we realized that pleading to policymakers to protect our own lives was not enough, and in looking for alternative ways, we thought of this idea of a climate litigation being brought to the Constitutional Court.

O'NEILL: And in 2024, the courts ruled with you. They agreed that the climate policy from the government was unconstitutional. Can you take us back to that day and how you felt when the decision was made?

KIM (TRANSLATED): Awaiting the decision from the constitutional court comes with no definite deadline. We were just waiting and waiting. So when the day came and we were told that there would be a decision made on that day, I was very, very nervous, but it wasn't a total win, because on some of the claims that we brought forth, it was decided that it was not unconstitutional. For example, the decision said that the existing policy for climate crisis might be insufficient, but it is still in place, so that, in itself, is not unconstitutional. However, the part that we rejoiced was that there is no pathway to reduce emissions on the long term, between 2031 and 2049. And that is a failure to protect the environmental rights of its citizens. And that was the part that was deemed unconstitutional. So I had a lot of mixed feelings. It was not pure joy. And I was inside the courtroom with my colleagues, and I can't describe the exact emotion that I felt in that moment, but we were all crying. We saw that the Korean government recognizes that anybody should be able to be protected in the face of the climate crisis, and the decision was a checkpoint that confirmed the Korean government's responsibility to protect its citizens. So when I heard that ruling and thought about the meaning of it more, I realized that the fight or the response against the climate crisis will not go backward from this moment on, at least.

O'NEILL: And so we are about two years out now from that ruling. So what do you think about South Korea's climate actions since then? What kind of changes have been made, but what else is there still left to do, as well?

KIM (TRANSLATED): Since the decision, the National Assembly was tasked to prepare a path forward for 2031 to 2049 to reduce emissions, recognizing that the response to climate crisis is a basic right for the people. And actually, the National Assembly was tasked to come up with improved legislation reflecting that decision by February 28 in 2026. However, the deadline came and passed, and the legislation did not come about, so we have had to continue to demand a more aggressive action from policymakers. However, what is hopeful to me is in that process, the National Assembly has opened up the discussion as a public deliberation, and in that forum, civil society got to deliberate how much emissions to reduce and by when, are we going to take a more short term aggressive action right now, or are we going to make it a long term plan and let future generations also deal with the responsibility. The result of the public deliberations came about on April 13, and civil society decided that it is our responsibility to take more aggressive actions right now on the historical emissions that South Korea has contributed. So based on that result, the National Assembly, I believe, is in preparation processes to reflect that into legislation.

O'NEILL: And from your perspective, what is the role of your country of South Korea in addressing climate change on a global level?

KIM (TRANSLATED): So within South Korea, I believe that the government has the responsibility to protect the basic rights of its people, but globally, I think it can contribute in several different ways. Korea actually experienced very fast growth based on fossil fuels and greenhouse gas emissions. So it does have to take responsibility on the past emissions. Not only that, it also exports coal power plants to countries in Southeast Asia, but when the country or the government decides to do these things, it has to recognize that it impacts the lives of those who are most vulnerable to the climate crisis. And I think from the constitutional court case, this was the first of its kind in Asia. So I believe that any kind of climate action that comes out after this will be a more progressive one, more aggressive one, and I know that Korea's decisions on the climate crisis will not go backwards from here. That is also my hope. And I know that there are other litigations in other countries in Asia, and I hope to network with them and be in solidarity with them, so that the decisions that come forward are even better ones that the ones that came out from Korea.

O'NEILL: Borim Kim is the winner of the 2026 Goldman prize for Asia. Borim, thank you so much for taking the time with me today, gamsahamnida.

KIM: Gamsahamnida.

Related links:
- Borim Kim’s profile at The Goldman Environmental Prize
- The Goldman Environmental Prize
- Learn more about Youth 4 Climate Action

Back to top

[MUSIC: Australian Pop Quartet, “Golden from Kpop Demon Hunters (Acoustic Instrumental Version)” on Acoustic Kpop Demon Hunters, Rush Records]

O’NEILL: Living on Earth is produced by the World Media Foundation.
Our crew includes Naomi Arenberg, Paloma Beltran, Swayam Gagneja, Mark Kausch, Mark Seth Lender, Don Lyman, Ashanti Mclean, Sophia Pandelidis, Jake Rego, Andrew Skerritt, Bella Smith, Julia Vaz, El Wilson, and Hedy Yang. Many thanks and best of luck to our departing intern, Sophie Bokor.

DOERING: Tom Tiger engineered our show. Alison Lirish Dean composed our themes. You can hear us anytime at L-O-E dot org, Apple Podcasts and YouTube Music, and like us please, on our Facebook page, Living on Earth. Find us on Instagram, Threads and BlueSky @livingonearthradio. And we always welcome your feedback at comments@loe.org. Steve Curwood is our Executive Producer. I’m Jenni Doering.

O’NEILL: And I’m Aynsley O’Neill. Thanks for listening!

ANNOUNCER: Funding for Living on Earth comes from you, our listeners, and from the University of Massachusetts, Boston, in association with its School for the Environment, developing the next generation of environmental leaders. And from the Grantham Foundation for the protection of the environment, supporting strategic communications and collaboration in solving the world’s most pressing environmental problems.

ANNOUNCER 2: PRX.