Sustain What?

Andy @Revkin
  • 5.0 (1)
  • SOCIAL SCIENCES
  • UPDATED WEEKLY

Sustain What? is a series of conversations, seeking solutions where complexity and consequence collide on the sustainability frontier. Revkin believes sustainability has no meaning on its own. The first step toward success is to ask: Sustain what? How? And for whom? revkin.substack.com

  1. Libertarian and Liberal Lawyers with a Climate Focus Agree on Big Weaknesses in Trump's Attack on the EPA “Endangerment” Finding

    6D AGO

    Libertarian and Liberal Lawyers with a Climate Focus Agree on Big Weaknesses in Trump's Attack on the EPA “Endangerment” Finding

    Thank you to everyone who tuned into my live Sustain What show on Team Trump’s effort to demolish a foundational finding by the Environmental Protection Agency - that heat-trapping greenhouse gases threaten public health and welfare. My guests were: * Jonathan Adler, a William and Mary Law School professor and commentator with a libertarian orientation who’s deeply dug in at the intersection of law and federal climate policy. Read his analysis of Trump’s endangerment strategy: * The Dangers of Pursuing the Endangerment Finding * Why Trying to Undo the Endangerment Finding Is A High-Risk (and Low-Reward) Deregulatory Strategy * Jean Chemnick, a longtime climate journalist at E&E News/ Politico. Read her excellent coverage. * Sean H. Donahue, a longtime environmental lawyer representing the Environmental Defense Fund in the litigation that has begun over the endangerment action. Donahue and Adler differ on some points but strongly agreed that the Trump administration, perhaps in trying to rush to put the question swiftly to the Supreme Court, may be its own undoing - chasing what Adler calls the “white whale” for zealots opposing climate action. Beware what you seek. I made a piece of art to illustrate the point: Here’s a nugget from Adler in which he explains the flaw in a strategy trying to undercut EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases by saying the science points to less severe risks: I used Google’s AI to generate this summary of key points: Jonathan Adler highlights the legal difficulties and potential strategic missteps of the Trump administration’s approach to revoking the endangerment finding (7:10-7:46). Adler also emphasizes that the motivation behind this strategy appears to be political rather than based on sound climate policy or scientific arguments (7:52-8:19). He points out that the auto industry, a key regulated sector, hasn’t expressed significant concerns about the endangerment finding itself (10:08-10:17). Jean Chemnik discusses the origins of the push to overturn the endangerment finding, tracing it back to individuals within the Bush administration and later at organizations like the Heritage Foundation (11:19-13:58). Chemnik also notes the symbolic importance of the endangerment finding for those who deny climate change as a serious problem (9:05-9:15). Sean Donahue asserts that the administration’s strategy is ill-advised from a legal standpoint, lacking sound justification in law or the existing record (15:16-15:26). Donahue points out the strong legal precedents, including Supreme Court decisions, that uphold the endangerment finding and greenhouse gas regulation (18:47-19:58). He also touches on the political implications, suggesting that if this repeal holds up, it could lead to significant demand for new climate policies at state, local, and federal levels (1:00:14-1:00:58). Thanks for watching the show and sharing it! If you appreciate what I’m doing and can affort to chip in, please consider joining the small crew of subscribers who chip in financially. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit revkin.substack.com/subscribe

    1h 3m

  2. FEB 18

    Meet "Death of Science" author John Horgan and Steve Fuller, a philosopher of knowing (and much more)

    Boy this conversation with End of Science author John Horgan and transhumanism fan Steve Fuller was fun, given how dark some of our conclusions were. Read the pre-show post to get a lot of relevant links and background: Precautionary versus “proactionary” strategies for managing the present with the future in mind Fuller said it’s important to let go of many of our worries about how present actions related to science and technology might affect future generations. “We get very hyped up about future generations,” he said. He added: I think we need to imagine when we think about future generations that their baseline about what counts as a good life will be whatever they’re born into. So in other words, they will not be thinking like us, just like we’re not thinking like Aristotle…. But there is an issue here about how you face the uncertainty of the future. And this gets to the business of the precautionary principle versus what I’ve proposed — the proactionary principle. These are two different attitudes toward risk, right? And the precautionary principle, you could trace it back to the Hippocratic Oath. Above all, cause no harm, right? So it’s a harm avoidance approach to risk because you treat uncertainty under those conditions as potential threat. So you set very high standards with regard to regulation for new technologies, stuff like that. The European Union actually has a version of the precautionary principle built into its environmental regulations. The other is the thing that is associated with transhumanism, and that is the proactionary principle. And the pro-actionary principle treats risk as an opportunity. So in other words, you treat it as like a fair throw of the dice almost. You adopt the attitude kind of the way entrepreneurs do. When they see a sort of uncertain situation, they’re going to make something out of it. And this idea then leads to a much more open sense of what the future can be. I mused on the reality that there’s little sign among the current world’s great powers — big tech firms, the oligarch class, superpowers — that regulation can be meaningfully applied. Horgan, long largely a techno-optimist, wrapped up our chat with this uplifting thought: And I’ve just concluded over the last five years, and it’s just been growing on me lately, that humanity doesn’t really give a s**t about understanding, illumination. It is always all been about power with the quest for truth as kind of marketing and window dressing. My view of the future of science and even of civilization is quite dark right now. There is much, much more. Please listen to the full show if you can and post reactions. I’ll drop the paywall, although I would love it if a few more of you decide to chip in to help me keep this Sustain What project going. Please consider becoming a financial supporter of Sustain What: Insert, Feb. 19 - Via Googl AI, here’s a summary: * Introduction to the Guests and Discussion Themes (0:44-2:25) * Andrew Revkin introduces his long-time friends and intellectual sparring partners, John Horgan and Steve Fuller. * The core topics of discussion are set: artificial intelligence (or synthetic/simulated intelligence), the “end of truth,” and the current state of our information environment. * Steve Fuller’s Background and Approach to Knowledge (2:38-5:04) * Steve Fuller explains his academic background in the history and philosophy of science. * He describes his focus on the social and political dimensions of science, particularly how technology and changing political economies influence the production and evaluation of knowledge. * The Impact of Social Media on Knowledge and Power (5:09-7:00) * The discussion shifts to how social media has drastically altered the dissemination of knowledge and the dynamics of power, especially in politics. * Steve Fuller highlights Andrew Breitbart and Steve Bannon as pioneers in using social media to channel information for ideological purposes, leading to a fragmented epistemic landscape. * John Horgan’s “End of Science” Revisited (10:56-12:05) * John Horgan reflects on his book The End of Science, suggesting that major scientific breakthroughs aimed at understanding the world (like relativity, quantum mechanics, and evolutionary theory) are largely behind us. * He expresses a dark view of the future of science and civilization, concluding that humanity primarily seeks power rather than truth or illumination. * AI: Horror vs. Positive Potential (15:13-17:03) * John Horgan admits his horror at AI, viewing it as bringing out his “Luddite” tendencies, despite his love for other technologies like his MacBook and iPhone. * He contrasts this with Steve Fuller’s more positive outlook on AI, particularly its potential to utilize vast amounts of scientific material that currently goes unused. * The “Replication Crisis” and AI’s Role in Science (27:00-27:51) * Steve Fuller attributes the “replication crisis” in science to narrow and competitive research frontiers, where pressure to be first leads to cutting corners. * He suggests that a broader distribution of scientific effort would reduce incentives for fraud. * The Future of Wikipedia in the Age of Generative AI (28:08-29:00) * Steve Fuller predicts that generative AI will put Wikipedia out of business because AI can provide customized, Wikipedia-style answers more efficiently. * He views Wikipedia as “old-fashioned crowdsourcing” that is laborious and prone to disputes. * Science as Faith and the “Conservation of Ignorance” (1:16:14-1:19:00) * The host plays a clip of Pete Seeger discussing his father’s view that scientists have the “most dangerous religious belief” – the idea that an infinite increase in empirical information is inherently good. * John Horgan challenges this, noting that science, unlike religious faith, has materially altered the world through technologies like the hydrogen bomb. * The “Conspiracy Mentality” and Endless Data Seeking (1:19:00-1:20:05) * Steve Fuller connects Pete Seeger’s critique to the “conspiracy mentality”, where people constantly seek more information, believing something is being hidden. * He argues that science, when working correctly, engages in “self-limitation” through method and tests, drawing lines rather than seeking data endlessly. And do share this post with friends concerned about the future and the present state of science. Thank you Larry Hogue, Jeanne Manion, Karen Malpede, Eleanor Margulis, and many others for tuning into my live video! Join me for my next live video in the app. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit revkin.substack.com/subscribe

    1h 25m

  3. FEB 10

    Gernot Wager on Surviving Team Trump’s War on Climate “Endangerment”

    I just had a truly helpful - and dare I say hopeful - pop-up conversation with Columbia University’s Gernot Wagner - a top-notch climate policy and economics analyst - on what to think and work on as the Trump Administration carries out its long-pledged plan to repeal the 2009 “Endangerment Finding” by the Environmental Protection Agency under President Obama. Quick points: * The litigation over this Trump move (details are still to come later this week) will play out for many years. * There’ll be lots of CO2 released inside the Beltway as anti-regulation zealots pop Champagne corks, but decarbonization trends will be sustained globally. * In the meantime, Wagner points to substantial areas of Trump policy that align completely with past Democratic policies - on geothermal, nuclear energy, energy storage (and, yes, carbon capture). Read this post by Wagner and colleagues. * We discussed how the huge surge in AI infrastructure investment is coming with a surge in solar/battery systems (yes and gas). Read his recent post with colleagues: “The Race to Power Data Centers.” Endangering “Endangerment” As the EPA website explains, the Endangerment Finding is the formal scientific determination that greenhouse gases—specifically carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride—threaten public health and welfare. The finding established the legal basis for regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. The Wall Street Journal was fed the exclusive by the administration in a story with on-record comments from the EPA admnistrator and Secretary of the Interior. The New York Times published a revealing deep dive focused on four key figures who’ve been working for 15 years or more to get to this moment. One is the lawyer Mandy Gunasekara, who helped Senator James Inhofe toss his snowball in the Senate in 2015 (seated behind him). One reality of course, as Cardiff University’s Aaron Thierry quipped on Bluesky, is that “You can repeal an endangerment finding. You can’t repeal the endangerment.” To me, it’s vital to keep a focus - amid all the destruction and backsliding - on what can be sustained or even advanced around clean energy choices even as the fight over regulation rolls on, enriching new generations of environmental lawyers. Wagner’s Columbia-based Climate Knowledge Initiative is one place to look for insights. Here’s that post I mentioned above: America’s Clean Energy Transition Will Continue Despite the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Listen to Wagner here if you can’t watch the whole show right now: If you like what I’m doing here, do consider chipping in a bit as a paying supporter. Sustain What is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Thank you Sarah Lazarovic, David Gelber, and many others for tuning into my live video! Join me for my next live video in the app. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit revkin.substack.com/subscribe

    36 min

  4. JAN 31

    Why AI's "Simulated Intelligence" is Great for Grunt Work, But Not Breakthroughs or Creativity

    This is the post-show podcast post of my Sustain What conversation with Christopher Mims, the Wall Street Journal tech columnist and author of How to AI, and Melanie Mitchell, the Santa Fe Institute researcher deeply dug in on the thing called artificial intelligence that remains pretty unintelligent. If you want to understand where this exposively evolving technology is, and isn’t, taking us, you have to subscribe to Mitchell’s Substack blog: And if you want to make the most of the AI toolkit at work or in the rest of life - from investing to music making to…. - you really need to read Mims’ book. I loved this moment when Mims introduces the concept of “productivity theater” - when AI produces what looks like work, but the work required to make the output useful can eliminate any true productivity gains: One thing AI is good at is efficiently summarizing conversations, so here goes, thanks to the Google AI tool embedded in YouTube: * Introduction of Guests and AI Context (0:48-1:31) * Andy Revkin introduces Christopher Mims and Melanie Mitchell, setting the stage for a discussion on managing information in a world increasingly shaped by AI. * Christopher Mims’ new book is highlighted as a user’s guide to AI technologies, emphasizing both their capabilities and limitations. * Critique of AI Hype and Investment Bubble (4:25-8:18) * Melanie Mitchell expresses skepticism about the predicted societal transformation by AI, noting the “crazy” amount of money flowing into the sector (4:52). * Christopher Mims discusses the significant investment bubble in AI, predicting an “ugly” outcome when it inevitably bursts, leading to stranded assets like half-empty data centers (7:44-8:18). He introduces the term “productivity theater” to describe AI’s ability to generate “products that look like work” (6:42-6:56). The limits of simulated intelligence * Understanding AI: Simulation vs. True Intelligence (9:22-12:21) * The conversation delves into the nature of AI, explaining that these systems are “incredibly good at simulating intelligence” but lack abstract reasoning, long-term planning, and world models (9:36-10:17). * Melanie Mitchell elaborates on the ambiguous definition of “intelligence,” suggesting that AI should perhaps be viewed as “complex information processing” rather than “artificial intelligence” (10:48-12:09). * AI’s Role in the Workplace and “Jagged Frontier” (13:31-22:20) * Christopher Mims describes AI’s “jagged frontier,” where it excels at retrieving and remixing information (e.g., coding) but struggles with tasks outside its training data or in novel environments (13:31-14:57). * Melanie Mitchell discusses the misunderstanding of how AI impacts jobs, noting that AI systems often fail in real-world scenarios despite performing well on benchmarks (18:00-19:44). She emphasizes that a “job is not equal to a set of tasks” (18:37). * Christopher Mims adds that AI’s high failure rates can lead to a decrease in human productivity, as time is spent correcting AI-generated “messes” (20:29-21:20). * Regulation and Ethical Concerns (28:57-32:17) * The discussion touches on the need for AI regulation, especially in critical areas like healthcare, where AI is being considered for Medicare benefit applications (29:10-29:23). * Christopher Mims highlights intense lobbying efforts against state-level AI regulations and uses the example of Grok on X (formerly Twitter) to illustrate the “horrific ways” AI can be abused without proper oversight (29:48-31:22). AI’s energy demands will shrink Melanie Mitchell made a fascinating and important point responding to a viewer’s question about energy and water demands. What she says parallels the shift from “baseload” power generation to distributed renewable and solar energy (not to mention from mainframe computers to your phones): * Environmental Impact and Future of AI Architecture (32:26-35:54) * The energy and water consumption of AI data centers is discussed, with Melanie Mitchell noting the push for more efficient and smaller AI models, a trend she believes will continue in the long term (33:07-35:02). * Christopher Mims agrees that efficiency drives will lead to more localized AI models, eventually running on devices like phones (35:07-35:28). * AI as a Tool vs. Superintelligence and Scientific Inquiry (37:33-46:51) * The guests discuss whether AI’s simulated intelligence is “good enough” for certain applications, like companionship, but caution about the potential for catastrophic failures and detachment from reality (38:08-40:11). * They debate the scientific and commercial pressures within the AI field, with Melanie Mitchell arguing that the focus on “making products” (43:04) hurts fundamental scientific inquiry by de-incentivizing “slower science” (44:56-45:12). * Christopher Mims contrasts AI development with other technologies (like energy), noting that AI breakthroughs have often been “kind of an accident” rather than the result of patient, long-term research (46:12-46:51). AI and the arts - music case study I closed things out by demonstrating how Suno took my barebones guitar-and-vocal version of my song “Save Dreams for Sleeping” and generated a rousing anthem. As I explained, the downside is a lot of SLOP on Spotify etc, but also demoncratization of music making. What do you think? Sustain What is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit revkin.substack.com/subscribe

    1h 1m

  5. JAN 29

    Extreme Winter Weather in a Human-Heated Climate

    This was a deeply illuminating conversation with top-flight researchers aiming to get beyond the back-and-forth edge-driven volleys on global warming’s role in shaping severe winter weather in the United States. Watch above or watch and share on Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube and X/Twitter. Here’s one key point from Jacob Chalif, the lead author of a 2025 study that found the recent upswing in waviness in the jet stream was matched or outmatched by earlier periods several times in previous decades back through the 20th century. This doesn’t mean global warming isn’t changing such atmospheric and weather patterns. It does mean that natural variability in the system is capable of such dynamics as well. The details and background are in the pre-show post here: Here are some of the papers we discussed: * July, 2025 - The intensification of the strongest nor’easters https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2510029122 * July, 2025 - The Mid-20th Century Winter Cooling in the Eastern U.S. Explained https://eos.org/editor-highlights/the-mid-20th-century-winter-cooling-in-the-eastern-u-s-explained * May 2025 - Attributing climate and weather extremes to Northern Hemisphere sea ice and terrestrial snow: progress, challenges and ways forward https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-025-01012-0 If you like what I’m doing, consider becoming a paying supporter. We also talked about a keystone need - vulnerability reduction - and something Trump could do (that he won’t do of course): Thank you Michael Ludgate, Vivian Henry, Graham Chant, Peter van Soest, and many others for tuning into my live video! Join me for my next live video in the app. Sustain What is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit revkin.substack.com/subscribe

    59 min

  6. JAN 25

    Save Dreams for Sleeping, It's Time to Get Loud

    I have deeply mixed feelings about AI in music, which I’ll elaborate on soon. But as a songwriter in act three of my life, and facing the reality that it takes a lot of time and money to build full productions of songs, I’ve started using Suno to envision what my barebones guitar-and-vocal tunes can sound like on a bigger scale. I am going to pull together some of the wonderful musicians around our Downeast Maine home to record an album later this winter and spring. But given the latest atrocity in Minneapolis, and the even more atrocious spin by scum like Stephen Miller, I had to put this Suno take on my song “Save Dreams for Sleeping” out for you to hear, sing along on, and hopefully share. Here’s the rough bedroom recording of the basic song as posted here and on CD Baby last year, followed by the lyrics. Save Dreams for Sleeping © 2025, Andy Revkin, Written Feb. 4, 2025, updated August 3, 2025 We all hold a dream somewhere deep in our minds, Where everything’s fair and everyone’s kind. Flowers all blooming, no smoke in the skies. No wars in the headlines, no tears in your eyes. But save dreams for sleeping. It’s time to get real. Hard workers are suffering while billionaires steal. Young women in trouble can’t find caring hands. House builders born elsewhere get bundled in vans. I’m not saying it’s easy. All good things take time. Those trying to divide us are good at their crimes. But if we stop dreaming, dive into the fray. A more perfect union is coming our way. Our country needs mending, but how to begin? With problems so tangled, no start and no end? Begin by protecting those facing the fire. Reach out by connecting through common desires. One day at a time, the trust you create Will carry us further than fighting and hate. One stitch at a time the fabric you weave, Will grow ever stronger than you can believe. So save dreams for sleeping. It’s time to get real. Hard workers are suffering while billionaires steal. Young women in trouble can’t find caring hands. House builders born elsewhere get bundled in vans. I’m not saying it’s easy. All good things take time. Those trying to divide us are good at their crime. But if we stop dreaming, dive into the fray A more perfect union is coming our way. ~ ~ ~ To sustain Sustain What and my music side, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit revkin.substack.com/subscribe

    4 min

  7. JAN 23

    Meet Former Russian Propagandist Andrew Ryvkin and Propaganda Expert Renee Hobbs

    There were many notable moments in my Sustain What discussion of Russian and American political propaganda, so I encourage you to watch the whole show. But here are a couple of highlights: Andrew Ryvkin, who created propaganda for the Kremlin for many years and now writes about information wars (now living in the United States), described a talk show he produced more than a decade ago, called “Honest Monday” (seriously), which would explore an issue each week (chosen by Kremlin officials) through several vantage points. It’s an illusion of a debate. People, the guests, this really is their opinion, what they’re saying. They’re not lying. Some are left, some are right, some are centrist. But the point is to align what they’re saying into a structure that would lead the viewer to realize,to realize, well, the more centrist, Kremlin, point of view is actually best. I immediately noted how that structure was echoed by Fox News’s Hannity and Colmes, back in the “fair and balanced” days at the Murdoch-owned network. Renee Hobbs, who teaches propaganda literacy at the University of Rhode Island, stressed how visual information like the flood of White House-generated memes in the past year bypasses critical thinking and spurs strong emotions. I urged viewers, and urge you, to read the Fox News op-ed posted last summer by Billy McLaughlin, who ran White House social media from inauguration through August before heading to the private sector. Here’s an excerpt: We did not build a cautious, government-style account. We built a fast, culturally fluent content machine designed to cut through the noise and win online. And it worked. In just six months, the administration’s platforms added over 16 million new followers, with the fastest growth among Americans aged 18–34. We generated billions of video views and gained more than half a million new YouTube subscribers – nearly triple the previous administration’s total growth over four years. But it was never just about numbers. Our success came from echoing the humor, passion and identity of a movement that was already alive. We did not invent the culture. We gave it a megaphone. This was not entertainment for entertainment’s sake. Our meme-heavy, content-first strategy was aligned with the president’s priorities. Digital was not a sideshow. It was a frontline tool for shaping narratives, building momentum, and applying pressure. One of the big takeaways was to try hard to avoid taking the “rage bait” he and others are creating for you. A fresh example emerged even as I was running the show, as a Trump line about cold weather and global warming prompted heaps of replies from climate-focused liberals, many of whom overstated the science on their end. That is NOT productive, I warned: The curtain raiser post has lots of relevant links and a related Sustain What chat with Hobbs: Thank you Andrei Codrescu, Michael Ludgate, Jeremy Zilar, Marshall Mermell, Tim Buxton, and many others for tuning into my live video! Join me for my next live video in the app. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit revkin.substack.com/subscribe

    1h 1m

  8. JAN 23

    How to Navigate a Superstorm of Malicious, Divisive, Dangerous and Distracting Propaganda

    First, I hope you can find time to listen to this evergreen conversation I had with Renee Hobbs, a leading authority and educator (at the University of Rhode Island) aiming to spread propaganda literacy. Her mission, in essence, is to help us all cut through the ever-evolving superstorm of online material and widgets designed to alarm, disarm, distract, confuse or entice - in other words, to enshittify what could otherwise be a miraculous set of tools for connecting and informing society. We spoke at the 2025 Bioneers Conference. But make sure to watch below as well. On Sustain What I just introduced Hobbs live to Andrew Ryvkin, a Russian-born writer and analyst focused on propaganda, authoritarian rule and international relations with a special level of expertise: he spent many years producing propaganda inside the Kremlin’s multi-layered media system. Watch and weigh in (and share) on Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube. As Ryvkin has been explaining in a series of “Pop Propaganda” talks (and will lay out in a forthcoming book), “Modern Russian propaganda is much more than angry talk-show hosts waving missiles on TV or troll farms flooding social media. It’s influencers, streaming platforms, and marketing campaigns that promote the Kremlin’s agenda, just as Nike advertises its sneakers….” Make sure to subscrribe to Andrew Ryvkin’s Substack letter of course. Start with his origin story: I used to work for the Kremlin… And read his articles in The Atlantic. Just for the record, despite our super similar names, we don’t seem to be related. He says his roots go back to Odessa. Mine go back to Ripky, a village in Ukraine my paternal grandfather fled around 1905 amid a peasant revolt and pogroms. Sustain What is a reader-supported publication. Consider becoming a paid subscriber. Just in case missed, here’s ANOTHER evergreen conversation I did with Hobbs in year one of the pandemic: This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit revkin.substack.com/subscribe

    1h 17m
See All (96)

About

Sustain What? is a series of conversations, seeking solutions where complexity and consequence collide on the sustainability frontier. Revkin believes sustainability has no meaning on its own. The first step toward success is to ask: Sustain what? How? And for whom? revkin.substack.com

Information

  • Creator
    Andy @Revkin
  • Years Active
    2022 - 2026
  • Episodes
    96
  • Rating
    Clean
  • Copyright
    © Andy Revkin
  • Show Website
    Sustain What?