Latest / How To Protect The Ocean / How NOAA and EPA Layoffs Threaten Environmental Research and Public Safety

Transcript

How NOAA and EPA Layoffs Threaten Environmental Research and Public Safety · How To Protect The Ocean

• 1:00:00
  We need to talk about these cuts are
• 1:00:02
  happening to NOAA and EPA.
• 1:00:04
  Over a thousand people have been fired
• 1:00:07
  from both of these departments that
• 1:00:08
  provide so much critical research and
• 1:00:11
  protections and enforcements for
• 1:00:13
  environmental regulations
• 1:00:14
  that are out to protect you.
• 1:00:16
  We're gonna talk about on today's episode
• 1:00:17
  of the how to protect the ocean podcast.
• 1:00:19
  Let's start the show.
• 1:00:22
  Hey everybody, welcome back to another
• 1:00:24
  exciting episode of the how
• 1:00:25
  to protect the ocean podcast.
• 1:00:26
  I'm your host Andrew Lewin.
• 1:00:27
  This is the podcast where you find out
• 1:00:28
  what's happening with the ocean how you
• 1:00:29
  can speak up for the
• 1:00:30
  ocean what you can do
• 1:00:31
  to live for a better ocean by taking
• 1:00:33
  action and on today's episode
• 1:00:35
  we're gonna be talking about how the
• 1:00:36
  ocean is being affected by the lack of
• 1:00:37
  people that used to be able to do
• 1:00:40
  research critical research be
• 1:00:42
  able to predict weather be able to manage
• 1:00:44
  fisheries be able to look after and model
• 1:00:47
  climate change be able to enforce
• 1:00:49
  Regulations for the clean water and the
• 1:00:50
  Clean Air Act that
• 1:00:51
  are designed to protect
• 1:00:53
  US citizens as well as other people
• 1:00:55
  around the world now, they're gone
• 1:00:57
  They are no longer employed with NOAA or
• 1:00:59
  the EPA and we need to talk about it on
• 1:01:02
  today's episode because this is not good
• 1:01:04
  This is going to have long-term effects
• 1:01:07
  before we get into those effects
• 1:01:08
  We are going to talk about what actually
• 1:01:11
  happened in this sort of battle for
• 1:01:14
  science this war against science
• 1:01:15
  So recent mass layoffs at the NOAA so the
• 1:01:18
  National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
• 1:01:20
  Administration and the Environmental
• 1:01:22
  Protection Agency EPA are poised to have
• 1:01:24
  significant long-term effects on
• 1:01:26
  environmental research in the United
• 1:01:28
  States and over the next decade
• 1:01:29
  So in late February this past week, we
• 1:01:32
  saw about 880 NOAA employees accounting
• 1:01:36
  for about 7.3% of its workforce laid off
• 1:01:39
  These layoffs include critical personnel
• 1:01:41
  for divisions such as the National
• 1:01:42
  Hurricane Center and the
• 1:01:44
  Storm Prediction Center
• 1:01:45
  Notably 25% of the Environmental Modeling
• 1:01:48
  Center staff were laid off and these
• 1:01:50
  reductions are predicted to impair NOAA's
• 1:01:53
  capability to provide accurate weather
• 1:01:55
  forecasts and conduct essential climate
• 1:01:57
  research potentially compromising public
• 1:02:00
  safety and effectiveness of
• 1:02:01
  disaster response mechanisms
• 1:02:02
  The layoffs also affected NOAA's support
• 1:02:05
  for external research institutions
• 1:02:07
  So for example, the Scripps Institute of
• 1:02:09
  Oceanography, which is a huge research
• 1:02:11
  institute in San Diego
• 1:02:12
  They received $42 million from NOAA in
• 1:02:15
  the fiscal year of 2023 and 2024 now
• 1:02:17
  faces uncertainty regarding future
• 1:02:19
  funding as all the
• 1:02:20
  funding have been taken away
• 1:02:21
  This jeopardizes ongoing research
• 1:02:23
  projects and development for the
• 1:02:25
  environmental studies
• 1:02:25
  A lot of research graduate students, a
• 1:02:28
  lot of research that goes on to look at
• 1:02:30
  coastal modeling, looks at water quality,
• 1:02:32
  looks at conservation, a lot of different
• 1:02:35
  aspects will be affected
• 1:02:36
  through Scripps almost immediately
• 1:02:38
  And this is a big problem
• 1:02:40
  The EPA also experienced significant
• 1:02:42
  staff reductions with over 300
• 1:02:44
  probationary employees terminated
• 1:02:46
  These cuts targeted personnel responsible
• 1:02:48
  for enforcing the regulations of the
• 1:02:50
  Clean Water and Clean Air Acts
• 1:02:51
  Those involved in
• 1:02:53
  reviewing environmental permits
• 1:02:54
  The loss of these employees could delay
• 1:02:57
  critical oversight functions and hinder
• 1:02:59
  timely responses to pollution and
• 1:03:01
  environmental disasters
• 1:03:02
  Thereby affecting the agency's ability to
• 1:03:05
  maintain environmental safeguards and
• 1:03:07
  public health protections
• 1:03:09
  This is serious guys
• 1:03:10
  I don't think I've ever seen cuts this
• 1:03:11
  big since we saw them in Canada happen a
• 1:03:14
  number of years ago, about a decade ago
• 1:03:15
  When Stephen Harper was prime minister
• 1:03:17
  with the conservatives, they made drastic
• 1:03:20
  cuts, but there was a
• 1:03:21
  strategy involved around it
• 1:03:23
  It's a very similar strategy to what's
• 1:03:25
  going on with the environmental
• 1:03:26
  reductions that are happening in the US
• 1:03:28
  It was all for oil and gas
• 1:03:29
  In Canada, about a decade ago, there was
• 1:03:32
  a pipeline being built from the tar sands
• 1:03:34
  in Alberta all the way to the coast in BC
• 1:03:36
  The reason why it took so long to do it
• 1:03:39
  is they had to cross these rivers and
• 1:03:40
  water crossings and so forth
• 1:03:41
  And when you have to do that, that
• 1:03:43
  automatically triggers an environmental
• 1:03:45
  assessment with those
• 1:03:46
  environmental assessment
• 1:03:47
  You look at species at risk. You look at
• 1:03:49
  fish habitat to cover the fisheries act,
• 1:03:51
  the species at risk act and those were
• 1:03:54
  hindering the production of this pipeline
• 1:03:56
  So what the government decided to do
• 1:03:58
  under pressure of oil and gas companies,
• 1:04:00
  they said, hey, you know what we're
• 1:04:01
  actually going to do?
• 1:04:01
  We're going to change the law. We're
• 1:04:04
  actually going to go in and we're going
• 1:04:05
  to change the fisheries act.
• 1:04:06
  They want to change the species at risk
• 1:04:07
  act, but they weren't able to do it in
• 1:04:09
  time. They got voted out
• 1:04:10
  before they could do it.
• 1:04:10
  But they changed the fisheries act to
• 1:04:12
  changing the wording of it. We used to be
• 1:04:15
  able to protect fish habitat.
• 1:04:17
  Then they wanted to change it. They said
• 1:04:18
  we're going to change that to protect
• 1:04:20
  commercially, recreationally and
• 1:04:22
  aboriginally commercial species that were
• 1:04:24
  actually fish that had a 30 year history
• 1:04:27
  of being fish, which took out a lot of
• 1:04:29
  the rivers and lake systems in Canada out
• 1:04:32
  of the running because it's just some of
• 1:04:34
  the fisheries hadn't been
• 1:04:35
  established for over 30 years.
• 1:04:36
  So that allowed the government to give
• 1:04:39
  permits faster for these oil and gas
• 1:04:41
  companies, no matter what they were going
• 1:04:44
  over, no matter what fish habitat they
• 1:04:45
  were destroying. Now, obviously, if you
• 1:04:47
  look at any conservation manual, you look
• 1:04:49
  at any fisheries site or talk to any
• 1:04:50
  fisheries scientists, they're going to
• 1:04:52
  say the best thing to do to protect
• 1:04:53
  fisheries is to protect their habitat
• 1:04:55
  because without their habitat, you're not
• 1:04:56
  going to have these fish.
• 1:04:58
  The government didn't care about this.
• 1:04:59
  They wanted this pipeline to go through.
• 1:05:01
  There was a lot of freedom of
• 1:05:02
  information. It was a big controversy
• 1:05:04
  that I've gone into in past episodes.
• 1:05:05
  I'm just giving you the rundown here. But
• 1:05:08
  regardless what happened, they changed
• 1:05:09
  the law and when they changed the law,
• 1:05:10
  they actually affected all the people
• 1:05:12
  that were under those sections.
• 1:05:13
  So we used to have like a section under
• 1:05:15
  the science that looked at environmental
• 1:05:16
  permits that were just looking at anybody
• 1:05:19
  who wants to develop where they would
• 1:05:21
  affect fisheries habitat.
• 1:05:23
  Now they didn't have to care about
• 1:05:24
  fisheries habitat. They just had to care
• 1:05:25
  about the recreational aboriginal viable
• 1:05:27
  species that were actually had a history
• 1:05:30
  of 30 years being fished.
• 1:05:30
  So now they actually couldn't have a fish
• 1:05:33
  habitat sector. They had to destroy that
• 1:05:34
  sector. They took it away and then they
• 1:05:36
  actually built up a new one. I think it
• 1:05:38
  was called fisheries protection program.
• 1:05:40
  That program was redesigned. It was very
• 1:05:42
  similar to what you did is
• 1:05:43
  just redesign under the new act.
• 1:05:45
  Now, since then, the Trudeau government
• 1:05:47
  came in and the first thing they did is
• 1:05:48
  they reviewed the fisheries act and they
• 1:05:51
  made it better. They put the fish habitat
• 1:05:52
  back in and they put it back. They put a
• 1:05:55
  lot of other things in there
• 1:05:56
  as well to make it stronger.
• 1:05:56
  The problem was it took five years for
• 1:05:59
  them to do that after they got into power
• 1:06:01
  because anything in government when
• 1:06:02
  you're putting a lot together, you have
• 1:06:04
  to take your time. You have to go through
• 1:06:05
  a specific process to get it done. All
• 1:06:08
  the development projects actually had
• 1:06:10
  went through really quickly and it could
• 1:06:12
  have destroyed fish habitat. So we had
• 1:06:13
  that five-year gap. Plus now you got to
• 1:06:15
  put it all together. It was ridiculous to
• 1:06:17
  be honest. It was really bad that we went
• 1:06:19
  to see and then after this happened when
• 1:06:21
  they put in that new division of the
• 1:06:22
  science section, the government, they had
• 1:06:24
  to rehire everybody. So what they did is they laid people off.
• 1:06:25
  Luckily, we were unionized. They laid
• 1:06:29
  people off and they couldn't get like
• 1:06:31
  just lay them off and you're done. You
• 1:06:32
  don't have a job. They had to give you
• 1:06:34
  choices of where you want to apply to,
• 1:06:35
  but you could move all over the country
• 1:06:37
  wherever you want to. So a lot of people
• 1:06:38
  got moved because they were forced to. So
• 1:06:40
  they had to move their homes. They had to
• 1:06:41
  move away from their family and friends
• 1:06:43
  and then some of them just actually just
• 1:06:45
  retired. A lot of them retired. They were
• 1:06:47
  on the cusp of retiring anyway, but it
• 1:06:49
  was all in the game of changing the law
• 1:06:51
  so that they can get this pipeline
• 1:06:53
  through. It was all about oil and gas and let's not get into the problem.
• 1:06:55
  So they were kind of twisted. This is
• 1:06:57
  about oil and gas and mining and
• 1:06:58
  development and natural resource
• 1:07:00
  development. That's what it is in the
• 1:07:02
  states right now. We are seeing this
• 1:07:03
  happen. We're seeing the Marine Mount
• 1:07:05
  Protection Act. That's going to be
• 1:07:06
  changed. We're seeing the clean water and
• 1:07:08
  the clean air acts. A lot of those
• 1:07:09
  regulations were rescinded. They were
• 1:07:11
  just taken out just like they were in the
• 1:07:14
  first Trump administration. I think it
• 1:07:15
  was like hundreds of different
• 1:07:16
  regulations were not applicable anymore
• 1:07:18
  and they were just taken out based on
• 1:07:20
  executive order. So now those two things
• 1:07:23
  that we looked at, the Marine Mount
• 1:07:24
  Protection Act that was
• 1:07:25
  very big when it came to oil and gas and
• 1:07:28
  seismic surveying, which is all about oil
• 1:07:29
  and gas had to do with you can't harass
• 1:07:32
  or kill or hurt harm a marine mammal,
• 1:07:35
  even especially when you're doing oil and
• 1:07:37
  gas. So that was a big hindrance to oil
• 1:07:39
  and gas production and just building and
• 1:07:41
  finding and drilling new wells. But then
• 1:07:43
  you also have the clean air and clean
• 1:07:45
  water act. So if you wanted to do coal
• 1:07:47
  plants or if you wanted to have mining,
• 1:07:50
  they had to have specific regulations
• 1:07:52
  that met criteria to meet the law so that they could have a better
• 1:07:55
  water. So that's why I think that they
• 1:07:56
  didn't pollute the air or the water in
• 1:07:59
  and around these mining areas or any kind
• 1:08:01
  of fossil fuel areas or any kind of
• 1:08:03
  chemical plant. Really like think about
• 1:08:05
  New York City, the harbor that got
• 1:08:07
  cleaned up over a number of years over
• 1:08:09
  decades because of things like the clean
• 1:08:11
  water act. You weren't allowed to dispose
• 1:08:13
  of chemicals or anything bad in the water
• 1:08:16
  and that harbor got cleaned up so much so
• 1:08:18
  that humpbacks are
• 1:08:19
  coming back and you see men.
• 1:08:25
  So you enjoy that water a lot better and
• 1:08:27
  it just becomes a nicer area to visit in
• 1:08:30
  a nice area to see and you have a healthy
• 1:08:31
  ecosystem. But people don't care about
• 1:08:33
  that these days. People care about more
• 1:08:35
  oil and gas development and fossil fuel
• 1:08:37
  development. According to this
• 1:08:38
  administration, they're going to drill
• 1:08:39
  baby drill. They care about mining and
• 1:08:42
  they care about anything that will harm
• 1:08:44
  the environment, it seems. And they're
• 1:08:46
  getting rid of the regulations to do
• 1:08:48
  that. And one of the things to do, not
• 1:08:50
  only are you getting rid of the
• 1:08:51
  regulations and changing the law, but
• 1:08:53
  you're also getting rid of
• 1:08:54
  the people who have the same
• 1:08:55
  skills that will actually help build
• 1:08:57
  these laws or help enforce these laws
• 1:08:59
  further or make these laws better to
• 1:09:02
  protect the environment and protect US
• 1:09:04
  citizens. And I think that's where it
• 1:09:05
  really comes down to. So what I wanted to
• 1:09:08
  know was I was like, what are the long
• 1:09:10
  term impacts of removing over a thousand
• 1:09:13
  people from the workforce in and around
• 1:09:17
  environmental departments such as NOAA
• 1:09:19
  and such as the EPA. I just kind of
• 1:09:21
  looked at a couple of things, a couple
• 1:09:22
  sources here that talked about it and
• 1:09:24
  I'll list those sources in the
• 1:09:25
  show notes. But one is diminishing
• 1:09:27
  research capacity. Obviously, the
• 1:09:29
  reduction of skilled scientists and
• 1:09:30
  researchers will likely slow progress of
• 1:09:32
  environmental studies of leading gaps in
• 1:09:35
  data and reduced understanding of
• 1:09:37
  environmental changes. The other was
• 1:09:39
  compromised public safety with fewer
• 1:09:41
  experts monitoring and predicting
• 1:09:43
  environmental hazards. Communities may
• 1:09:45
  face increased risk from events such as
• 1:09:47
  hurricanes, wildfires and industrial
• 1:09:49
  pollution. We just saw what happened in
• 1:09:51
  the wildfires in Pasadena. We saw how
• 1:09:53
  quickly that fire came through without
• 1:09:55
  warning people that they were
• 1:09:55
  going to be affected. Especially when
• 1:10:04
  you're looking at when the wind are going
• 1:10:06
  to come up and you can predict those
• 1:10:07
  winds, what's going to happen there. And
• 1:10:09
  the last one is the erosion of
• 1:10:10
  institutional knowledge. So the departure
• 1:10:12
  of experienced personnel results in the
• 1:10:14
  loss of valuable institutional knowledge
• 1:10:16
  which is crucial for mentoring new
• 1:10:18
  scientists and maintaining the continuity
• 1:10:20
  of long term research projects. When you
• 1:10:23
  are in government, you have these
• 1:10:25
  projects. It's very important to understand that you have a particular
• 1:10:25
  And when you come in as a
• 1:10:27
  young scientist in government,
• 1:10:28
  you usually get assigned to a project.
• 1:10:30
  Some of these projects
• 1:10:30
  are five years, three years.
• 1:10:32
  Some of these have
• 1:10:33
  been going on for 50 years
• 1:10:34
  in monitoring and so forth.
• 1:10:36
  If you lose that, you
• 1:10:37
  lose those five, 10 years,
• 1:10:38
  or you eliminate those programs,
• 1:10:39
  or even you eliminate the scientists
• 1:10:41
  that have been there for a long time,
• 1:10:43
  and you have these new
• 1:10:43
  people who are coming in,
• 1:10:45
  you're not getting the experience
• 1:10:47
  that the older scientists
• 1:10:48
  would be able to pass down
• 1:10:49
  because they are gone, essentially.
• 1:10:52
  Or you lose that young
• 1:10:54
  cohort that came through
• 1:10:55
  because they were the
• 1:10:56
  last ones to get on.
• 1:10:57
  So they're the first
• 1:10:57
  ones to get off in layoffs.
• 1:10:59
  And so now you have a
• 1:11:00
  gap of the generation
• 1:11:02
  that doesn't know what
• 1:11:03
  they're doing when they get back in.
• 1:11:04
  And hopefully they'll be able to rehire
• 1:11:06
  for those positions.
• 1:11:07
  It's gonna be expensive,
• 1:11:08
  it's gonna be difficult,
• 1:11:08
  but all that data
• 1:11:09
  that you lose in between
• 1:11:11
  getting rid of people
• 1:11:12
  who've been there over 30 years,
• 1:11:14
  or even 20 or even 15 or
• 1:11:15
  even 10, or even just like two,
• 1:11:17
  you lose that institutional knowledge
• 1:11:18
  and you lose that
• 1:11:19
  ability to train and mentor
• 1:11:21
  new scientists that are coming through
• 1:11:23
  that'll allow them to be
• 1:11:24
  better than the other scientists
• 1:11:25
  when they first came in.
• 1:11:26
  That's the whole point
• 1:11:27
  is make science better,
• 1:11:28
  but you're not able to do that when
• 1:11:30
  you're losing these gaps of people.
• 1:11:32
  It's not as if these
• 1:11:33
  layoffs are based on performance.
• 1:11:35
  These layoffs are based on what saves the
• 1:11:37
  government the most money,
• 1:11:39
  but also they never look at what will
• 1:11:42
  destroy the government
• 1:11:43
  or these programs or
• 1:11:45
  will hurt the citizens.
• 1:11:46
  And we've already seen some examples that
• 1:11:48
  Elon Musk himself has admitted to.
• 1:11:50
  Those canceled an Ebola program,
• 1:11:52
  and they realize that they
• 1:11:54
  were like, Oh, hold on a second.
• 1:11:55
  We actually need that.
• 1:11:56
  So we're gonna bring those people back
• 1:11:57
  and we're gonna put the
• 1:11:58
  bullet program back out.
• 1:11:59
  So it's okay.
• 1:12:00
  We make mistakes even said, but we will
• 1:12:01
  try and rectify them as soon as possible.
• 1:12:03
  It just goes to show that they're not
• 1:12:04
  really looking at stuff that's critical.
• 1:12:07
  They're just going through and they're
• 1:12:08
  just taking away things that
• 1:12:09
  they think is a lot of money.
• 1:12:11
  And if it's a lot of money, they can save
• 1:12:12
  them a lot of money, then they'll do it.
• 1:12:14
  It's really coming at it from a very tech
• 1:12:16
  and private sector format,
• 1:12:18
  which you can't do in the public sector
• 1:12:20
  because these programs
• 1:12:22
  that people know nothing about these
• 1:12:23
  people who are coming in,
• 1:12:24
  they know nothing about they know nothing
• 1:12:26
  about their significance.
• 1:12:26
  They're just looking at the price tag.
• 1:12:28
  They have no idea what this can do in
• 1:12:30
  terms of harm for a lot of people taking
• 1:12:32
  away an Ebola program,
• 1:12:34
  you know, give it to them.
• 1:12:35
  They put it back.
• 1:12:36
  But why take it away in the first place?
• 1:12:37
  Why don't you take your
• 1:12:38
  time go through each program?
• 1:12:40
  They're just kind of coming through
• 1:12:40
  quickly quickly and cutting,
• 1:12:42
  but then they don't realize what mistakes
• 1:12:44
  they're making in the future.
• 1:12:46
  Taking away people who model and predict
• 1:12:48
  weather is very, very dangerous.
• 1:12:50
  We just talked to Dave Jones last episode
• 1:12:52
  and what that meant for the weather
• 1:12:55
  service and for NOAA and
• 1:12:56
  for satellites and for NASA.
• 1:12:58
  These are our programs that are critical
• 1:13:00
  to U.S. citizen safety.
• 1:13:02
  We don't know where these
• 1:13:03
  hurricanes are coming from.
• 1:13:04
  We don't know the power of them.
• 1:13:06
  We are going to be lost when these
• 1:13:08
  hurricanes comes and hit people.
• 1:13:09
  And unfortunately, people
• 1:13:10
  are going to die because of it.
• 1:13:12
  And who takes responsibility for that?
• 1:13:14
  Right? Is the government going to take
• 1:13:15
  responsibility because these programs
• 1:13:16
  have been taken out?
• 1:13:17
  We always see that when a natural
• 1:13:19
  disaster comes, we see, oh, well, you
• 1:13:20
  know, the fire department got cut at a
• 1:13:22
  certain time because of whatever.
• 1:13:25
  Right. Cost savings.
• 1:13:26
  And then you're like, well, the wildfire
• 1:13:27
  came through and the fire department
• 1:13:28
  didn't have as many resources, right?
• 1:13:30
  Because they had just gone through a
• 1:13:31
  budget cut or something like that.
• 1:13:32
  We see this all the time after a natural
• 1:13:34
  disaster comes through.
• 1:13:35
  And instead of going in and saying, hey,
• 1:13:37
  we know we're going to have more natural
• 1:13:39
  disasters and we need to shore up that
• 1:13:41
  staff and those resources.
• 1:13:43
  No, they always do the opposite.
• 1:13:44
  It's extremely frustrating.
• 1:13:46
  But the real part here that really gets
• 1:13:48
  me is the fact that over a thousand
• 1:13:50
  people do not have jobs that had jobs
• 1:13:52
  just this past week.
• 1:13:54
  And it has nothing to do
• 1:13:55
  with the way they perform.
• 1:13:56
  These are very good scientists.
• 1:13:58
  These are scientists who work as a public
• 1:14:00
  servant and they
• 1:14:02
  don't look at party lines.
• 1:14:04
  They look at what their project is.
• 1:14:06
  They take very good pride in their
• 1:14:07
  project and they do it for
• 1:14:09
  years and sometimes decades.
• 1:14:11
  And to just be taken away like that is
• 1:14:14
  extremely disappointing.
• 1:14:16
  Right. To get funding
• 1:14:17
  rescinded like that is horrible.
• 1:14:21
  And this is going to flood the job market
• 1:14:23
  like for organizations that may not be
• 1:14:25
  able to pay like they used
• 1:14:26
  to get paid in the government.
• 1:14:27
  I don't know what's going to happen to a
• 1:14:29
  lot of these people.
• 1:14:30
  This is extremely sad to
• 1:14:32
  see what's going to happen.
• 1:14:33
  And the long term consequences of this is
• 1:14:36
  going to be very sad.
• 1:14:37
  It's going to be long after Donald Trump
• 1:14:39
  and J.D. Vance have had
• 1:14:40
  their administration in.
• 1:14:42
  They'll be long gone after this,
• 1:14:43
  hopefully after these four years.
• 1:14:45
  And we are going to see a mess.
• 1:14:47
  We're going to see a mess that has to be
• 1:14:49
  cleaned up by the next administration,
• 1:14:50
  whether that be Democratic or Republican.
• 1:14:53
  And that is going to be harmful for the
• 1:14:55
  U.S. in the long term.
• 1:14:56
  I don't think people understand how
• 1:14:58
  harmful this is going to be even in the
• 1:15:00
  short term when we start to see these
• 1:15:02
  programs get cut so quickly.
• 1:15:04
  So I'd love to hear
• 1:15:04
  your thoughts on this.
• 1:15:05
  Are you a government employee or used to
• 1:15:07
  be a government boy?
• 1:15:07
  I'd love to hear your story.
• 1:15:08
  You can DM me at how
• 1:15:09
  to protect the ocean.
• 1:15:10
  You can put your comments down below on
• 1:15:12
  YouTube or on Spotify.
• 1:15:13
  Obviously you can DM me on Instagram at
• 1:15:15
  how to protect the ocean.
• 1:15:16
  But don't forget to subscribe and hit
• 1:15:18
  that notification bell so you don't miss
• 1:15:19
  any other episodes we put out Monday,
• 1:15:21
  Wednesday and Friday.
• 1:15:23
  I would love to hear your thoughts.
• 1:15:24
  Of course.
• 1:15:24
  So please put them in the comments
• 1:15:25
  whether you're for these layoffs or
• 1:15:28
  against these laughs.
• 1:15:28
  I'd love to hear your
• 1:15:29
  thoughts regardless.
• 1:15:30
  And I want to thank you so much for
• 1:15:31
  joining me on today's episode of the how
• 1:15:33
  to protect the ocean podcast.
• 1:15:34
  I'm your host, Andrew Lewin from the true
• 1:15:35
  North strong and free.
• 1:15:36
  Have a good day.
• 1:15:37
  I'll talk to you next
• 1:15:38
  time and happy conservation.