Jeff Bethel Oral History Interview, December 19, 2017

ELIZABETH THORLEY: Today is Dec. 19th, 2017. I'm here at the Valley Library with Dr. Jeff Bethel, a professor in the School of Biological and Population Health Sciences. Today, we're gonna talk about his research, as it relates to global warming in particular. But I'd like to start with your background. Where were you born?

JEFF BETHEL: I was born in San Diego, California.

ET: Is that where you grew up?

JB: Yeah, I grew up about 30 minutes north of San Diego in Carlsbad, California. Lived in the same house till I left for college.

ET: What did your parents do?

JB: Both my parents were educators in the middle school and high school levels. My dad was a teacher/coach for many years, and athletic director, and then became a principal in his last several years before he retired. My mom was a middle school counselor, and then a high school counselor towards the end of her career. So, educators for 35+ years.

ET: Was there an expectation for you to go to university after school?

JB: It wasn't really spoken, but it was what I knew. Both my parents had master 00:01:00degrees and my older sister got into college. And I was a good student. The expectation was more internal-just, I'm going to college.

ET: What were your interests growing up?

JB: As a kid, mostly sports. [Laughs] I was into playing sports year-round, one after another growing up. But I was always good at math and science. And I'd always wanted to be a small town physician, growing up. That was kind of my goal in life, as a young kid and getting into middle school, and early in high school.

ET: And you ended up going to UC Davis?

JB: Yeah, I went to UC Davis. It was the last school I visited. Applied to all UCs. You know, I was a California kid and got into all of them. But Berkeley and L.A. just felt too big for me, being from a relatively small town of 60,000 00:02:00people. Davis just felt perfect. And it fit me really well, stronger in the sciences. And I just loved my time at Davis so much. In fact, I went back for graduate school.

ET: And your bachelor's degree is in biochemistry?

JB: Biochem, yeah. And then after undergraduate, I moved back to San Diego and worked at a biotech company. I was their first employee they ever hired, doing contract research, developing rapid diagnostic tests, lateral flow assays. I was by myself for months at a time while the two owners were out jumping up business-until I got a friend of mine, graduate of Davis, several months later a job. And there was the two of us, working in the lab. Did that for two and a half years.

And I realized just before that time ended that I did not want to be on the bench for the rest of my life. And kind of explored-I'm interested in health and medicine, like I mentioned, and was very analytical, good at math. And I was 00:03:00talking to a friend at a family party who was getting her masters in epidemiology at UC Berkeley. And I didn't really know much about epidemiology. I knew public health. But we were talking and she was describing epi. I said, "This is for me." It's perfect, conducting studies and using my quantitative background in a health related field. It was for me. Did more research and went back to Davis.

ET: Had you had exposure to undergraduate research as a student?

JB: A little. Just a basic lab job on campus. But that was about it.

ET: And did you know that you wanted to pursue a Ph.D. as opposed to a master's when you went back to school?

JB: Initially, when I went back to Davis, I was in the master's program. But they had a unique program. I just switched over to the Ph.D. track. They have the same requirements the first couple of years so the only difference was just continue on to get your dissertation, or, to complete your dissertation.

ET: So the epidemiology program is in the School of Medicine. But it sounds like you had a research focused Ph.D. Is that correct?

JB: So it was housed, actually, within the School of Veterinary Medicine and School of Medicine. And I linked up with a professor, Dr. Marc Schenker who's the-just retired-director of the Western Center of Agriculture Health and Safety at UC Davis, one of a CDC/NIOSH funded ag, health and safety center. And he needed some work done by graduate students. And it was really my first big entry into research. He was conducting a study, looking at the Hispanic paradox that immigrant Latino women had better birth outcomes compared to their native-born counterparts, despite lower SCS, lower education, less access to care. That was 00:05:00the broader goal. But I was focused on the agricultural exposures, occupational exposures.

So we conducted the stats, comparing farming workers to non-farm workers, and one who didn't work, all Latino women, and compared their birth outcomes: preterm, low birth weight, deliveries and other birth outcomes. And then heat was a big part, working in farm workers in Central Valley, California. That's really when I first got into this issue or idea, or interest, in climate change-was this workers working in very hot conditions, and impact on their health.

ET: What was the data collection process like? I'm assuming it's survey based? And do you speak Spanish?

JB: So we had about 1,200 women enrolled in the study. And they had a baseline interview, very extensive. I think it was a three-hour-interview, looking at 00:06:00nutritional background, stress and social support, basic demographics, sexual history, smoking, drug use, you name it. That was the baseline. They were recruited out of prenatal clinics in Stockton, California. And we followed them through their delivery. And then we accessed their medical records and abstracted all the data regarding their pregnancy and their delivery.

And I wouldn't call myself bilingual. But I can speak pretty well. And one of my duties was, before we got to analysis phrases, to track down the women who-we call "lost the follow up"-moved away or we couldn't locate. Because we spent a lot of time and energy on these baseline interviews in our study, we wanted to make sure we capture all the women who we enrolled, get outcome data on all of them for efficiency and to make better use of our data.

ET: Did it seem like climate change was becoming relevant to other labs within that program?

JB: Climate change at that time. I was in this ag, health and safety world so within that area, yes. Climate change, at that time, thinking back 15+ years now, was global warming at the time, I think. I'm not sure if the terms are being used at that time. But without question, the occupational hazards to these workers were, in part, rooted in climate, primarily heat. And there were ergonomic issues then, adding to climate change. But that's when I really started this interest in these environmental exposures due to climate, among this very vulnerable population who has to work outdoors in the most part. And they don't have a lot of power and they typically get paid by the piece, how 00:08:00much they pick. And they are incentivized to keep working and not taking breaks, taking steps that will prevent heat-related illness. So that's where I got my interest in climate and health started there.

ET: Did you teach while you were in grad school?

JB: I did not. Very different than here in Oregon State, I did not have any teaching responsibilities. So I was a graduate assistant with Dr. Schenker. And then I transitioned to a fellowship I obtained the last three years. They gave me a research stipend, a travel stipend, a monthly stipend to live on towards admissions. So I didn't have to teach.

ET: So when you were done with your Ph.D., it looks like you left academia and went to the CDC.

JB: I did. I wasn't sure which route I wanted to go, so I applied for this CDC's CSDE, applied epi fellowship. And that's where I was entering the program onto a 00:09:00matching process. And I matched with a program in San Diego, part of CDC, the Division of Global Migration and Quarantine. It was formally a quarantine station. But in San Diego-most quarantine stations in the country are based in airports, a lot of inspection-we didn't do any of that in San Diego. Their area of interest was the port of entry, the land border. And really what it was is binationally surveillance for infectious diseases, which is fascinating to me. So I did a just-short-of two year applied epi fellowship with CDC there then. And that transitioned into a full-time position with CDC.

And that was an amazing experience. I travelled to Morgantown, West Virginia, to do some training with NIOSH. I got to do a project in Miami, looking at the transmission of infectious disease on cruise ships from crew to passengers. Not 00:10:00really climate related at this time. And then, of course, my main responsibilities at San Diego, looking at the land border-the division was tasked with stopping the entrance and spread of infectious diseases into the United States, which is impossible. So that's why we took a more binational approach. So we worked with our counterparts in Mexico. They have a very different system. They had to get approval for everything in Mexico City at the federal level, while in United States, the county was more used to working more locally. But that was an amazing experience working with a foreign country, with city officials, health officials in Tijuana. It was just a tremendous experience.

ET: Do you feel like that experience has given you a unique perspective on the US-Mexico border outside of the political discussion?

JB: Oh yeah. Actually, it's a geopolitical border. People live in one, work in the other; live in one, their kids go to school on the other. It goes both ways. 00:11:00It's the busiest port of entry in the world. I don't have the numbers off the top of my head-I used to know those numbers of people who go across, just one port of entry in San Ysidro everyday. But when pandemic, influenza, hit, there was talk of closing the border. And that was just not feasible-you can't do it. But yeah, growing up in San Diego, we used to go down to Rosarito Beach for lobster. So I was comfortable traveling to Mexico. I'm used to it. But it's a different experience, working at the border region for the goals of prompt identification of people with infectious diseases to stop the spread. That's what we're trying to do.

ET: And what did you think of the culture of the CDC and working of that organization?

JB: I think 90+% of CDC employees are around Atlanta. So I was in a field station, so to speak. So, it was a different experience for me than workers and 00:12:00employees in Atlanta. But I travelled there frequently and we all got together. But in my division, it was extremely supportive of what I wanted to do. I was unique, I had a Ph.D.-most employees had a master's in public health. So our higher ups are very supportive of me publishing and going to conferences, which was pretty rare. It was a great experience. And my first job in academia really valued that experience I had at CDC.

ET: Why did you decide to return to academia?

JB: A couple reasons. One, I was overqualified for what I was doing. A Ph.D. is a research degree and I wasn't getting those research opportunities. But like I said, they encouraged me to publish and go to conferences. That was one reason. I was trained to research. I wasn't really getting those opportunities as much 00:13:00as I hoped. The red tape, the bureaucracy, was weighing on me a little bit. I was working on a influenza surveillance system with a cruise ship. Private company so they were ready to go yesterday, and I was dating my proposals. In a year, I ticked off. And I went, this is amazing, this is kinda hard to do.

So between those two main reasons, I wanted more independence. I knew in academia-there's still bureaucracy in academia, of course-I can have more independence. It's on me to write grants and successfully obtain money. So it's all on me. I'm not waiting for someone else to do things. I can be more independent. And I can better utilize my training. So that's why I jumped back to academia.

ET: And you ended up at East Carolina University?

JB: Yeah. So the applied epi fellowship I had wasn't a traditional academic postdoc where you do research. So, short of that experience, I think I landed in 00:14:00a perfect place at ECU, East Carolina University, in the School of Medicine there, Department of Public Health, at an MPH program. We also have a small faculty with a lot of students, even more than we have here. So I was doing a lot. That's where I really learned how to be a grant writer. I didn't have much experience doing that before I went to ECU, and be in a tenure-track assistant professor. I had to balance the teaching, the research, the service. Started learning how to say no to things, which is a very important skill for an academic. And it was a wonderful experience.

I was there three years. And I still keep in touch with students from that. I was there, starting nine years ago. And left six years ago. And I just met a former student of mine at a conference in Atlanta a couple weeks ago. Great 00:15:00experience. It was a good experience for me and my wife at the time. We were married and we're still married now. We moved to the South and that was a really great experience, living someplace different. Not sure I would've had that experience otherwise. Different environment, different weather. That's when I really learned the humidity. [Laughs] I wasn't used to humidity before I moved to the south. And it was just a tremendous experience. I met some great people, good friends. But then the pull back west was strong.

ET: It sounds like you were teaching?

JB: Yeah, teaching graduate students. And that's where I continued further my work in agriculture, health and safety, specifically in heat stress. And North Carolina has a longer growing season than the West Coast, from May through November. And, like I mentioned before, their summers are extremely hot and 00:16:00humid, and have a very high heat index value which is a combination of temperature and relative humidity. So their workers were at much greater risk for heat-related illness than workers on the West Coast, with that humidity factor. So I continued working in that area. Then I started incorporating other dimensions of climate change into my work, like natural disasters preparedness. Really, where those parts of my portfolio started to take off was in North Carolina.

ET: And how did you end up at Oregon State?

JB: I saw a position opening, assistant professor epidemiology, here at Oregon State University in College of Public Health and Human Sciences. The College was expanding from a MPH program to a fully accredited school. And with that, they need to hire a lot of faculty.

And I was happy where I was. The plan was to get tenure back there, and then 00:17:00eventually move back west. But this was too good to pass up. The UC schools, at that time, were under an intense budget restriction. They weren't gonna hire anytime soon. So I put my name in the hat, see what happens. And my family was very happy. I was given an interview, no pressure on the interview or anything. [Laughs] And it all worked out. And here we are.

And we were thrilled to be here, to move back west, to be in Oregon State University, and to be in Corvallis. It's a wonderful city. We have two kids now. We moved here with a 9-month-old and have a second daughter.

ET: Were there people who're important to getting you settled in when you arrived at OSU?

JB: Yeah. Anna Harding was one of the school co-directors at the time. She's since retired. She's in the Environmental and Occupational Health program. She 00:18:00was instrumental in getting me here, really solidifying this is a great place to me, as well as OSU has many different climate science programs.

So I met with Phil Mote during my interview. I requested that. And he was open to collaborating. His group hadn't really done much in the health world but he encouraged me to come, and to be a part of that group. And I'm a funded member of his group, now one of the groups in the Climate Impacts Research Consortium.

So those are the two, among others, that really sold me on this is a good place for me. Cuz it could be a good fit geographically, but if it's not a good fit professionally, it's not gonna last. So that was always secondary. But it had to be a good fit professionally. And it was, and it is.

ET: So, moving more into your research, you referenced disaster preparedness. 00:19:00How do you evaluate disaster preparedness within a particular community or population?

JB: A couple different ways to assess preparedness. One of my interests is at the household level. So I teach a graduate-level disaster epidemiology class. And putting it together-it was a new course, I think I've taught it four times now-I was overly ambitious. And I'm glad I was at the time, because I decided to have the students conduct a CASPER, Community Assessment for Preparedness Emergency Response. It's a methodology developed by CDC, rooted in immunization coverage assessment from WHO, in which you essentially do door-to-door surveys. And it has a two-stage sampling scheme-we don't need to get into that here. But the students get the experience using census data, using some GIS software to identify a random sample of clusters or block groups in Corvallis-we do it in Corvallis every year.

And at the second stage, we do systematic sampling every tenth house, or whatever the interval is. We'd develop a questionnaire, using CDC temples and other existing questionnaires. And we just ask questions about preparedness. And we've done that for four times now. It's been a great experience for the students. And I've also been presenting those data at conferences regionally in the Northwest, in Oregon, as well as nationally.

And like I said, it's an ambitious project for me to organize it. I've put more on the students since that first year. And the students get an experience doing sampling, doing data analysis, writing up the report. But that's just my project. But other communities, primarily public health departments, have done CASPERs to assess their communities' preparedness. They've been done all throughout the country. Even here in Washington County, Oregon, did one recently. Crook County did one regarding drought. They have been done in 00:21:00Michigan, Tennessee, Kentucky-all over the country using similar methods-Huston. You can use the same methods to assess the impact of a disaster, that same sampling scheme to go door to door, to use as a rapid needs assessment for affected communities after disasters. That's the primary use of the CASPER. But we've used it to also assess preparedness.

ET: Do you try to assess why there are differences in preparedness between populations? For example, does, say, education around climate change affect how someone prepares?

JB: We haven't really done much into examining differences between groups or populations. It's a-I'm pretty sure-questionnaire. We gotta keep it in ten minutes so it's one piece of paper, front and back. That's it. And we get more at the tangible supplies. We have asked them questions, if you were under mandatory evacuation, why wouldn't you evacuate. It was very few people. We have 00:22:00made some comparisons looking at homeowners versus people who rent their homes. And this last group did find a big difference in preparedness levels between homeowners and renters. Homeowners were much more prepared than renters.

We haven't brought in the climate piece yet. We have asked about what hazard are you most concerned about. In the Northwest, it's earthquake, not climate related. But it's big earthquake and then winter storms, and flooding.

ET: Do you make recommendations based on how communities could be better prepared?

JB: So in our project, everybody gets some information that we obtain from American Red Cross about how each household can better prepare itself. And we found that just administering the questionnaire is an intervention in itself, getting people to think about some of them never thought about: "Oh we don't have supplies of food, water, first-aid kit."-despite the fact that maybe 00:23:00they're not prepared, just asking questions. We haven't gone back to assess this but anecdotally, the feedback from the students is that the respondents have told them, "Wow I never thought about this. This is something I need to do."

Other research, not my own, has looked at-back to your previous questions-differences in preparedness. People who've experienced disasters in the past are more prepared for it in the future. And there's different interventions being developed in how to increase preparedness. I haven't gotten into the intervention part yet. For that slice, my research's preparedness assessment.

ET: So going back to your work with farm laborers, can you talk about how you anticipate farm laborers will be affected by climate change? You mentioned heat earlier. Are there other exposures that you've thought about?

JB: Sure. Outdoor workers in general, heat's the big one. The biggest concern is 00:24:00working in hot conditions. Air pollution's the other one, not as much work in that area I think because it's not as big a concern as heat. But heat is number one among all outdoor workers, particularly farm workers. As I mentioned before, this is a group that are not really part of organized labor. They're a vulnerable population. They typically get paid by the piece. So the incentives aren't there to take steps to protect themselves. So heat is really the big one.

ET: Okay. How do you think they can be better protected against heat-related illness? Do you think implementing policies or training would help with that?

JB: Yeah. So California and Washington are the two states in the United States that have a specific heat rule, addressing outdoor workers, including farm workers. And each state's heat rules are very similar. They differ somewhat. But they have provisions for portable water, rest breaks in the shade, trainings, 00:25:00emergency response protocols. Things like that. And in California broadly, heat-related illness is now a reportable condition in California. That's a big deal so you'd know what the problem is, or the magnitude of the problem in this case, heat-related illness. But really training, not just of the works but of the supervisors and the growers, so everybody's on the same page about how it's a preventable condition.

And growers are different. Some are very supportive, some not so much. Some, they'll be aware of the forecast, then they'll change the work schedule: "It's gonna be heat index value of over 100 today, or over 90. Let's start early, get the work done early. And then we can take a long break and do something in thelate afternoon." So there's plenty of concerned growers, how they want to protect their workers. But training is really important. And the training of the 00:26:00workers is you'd have a buddy system, train the workers to have them be aware of the symptoms, cuz they range from profuse sweating-of course they're gonna be doing, cuz they're working hard-muscle cramps, to nausea, dizziness, vomiting, all the way to fainting and perhaps death. But having a buddy system and each looking for the symptoms in the other is one step that they can take. Again, portable water is important. These workers, they're out in the field, getting water to them so they don't wanna feel compelled to take ten minutes to stop work-again, that could affect their pay. So water needs to be close. Portable shade structures, misters, fans, those kinds of things.

And put it in, frame it in a way that I think the growers will be supportive of it-the ones that're a little skeptical-that healthy workers are more productive workers. I think it's one approach to take.

ET: You've mentioned how they get paid has been a big factor. Do you think that 00:27:00if that was changed, if they were paid by the hour, that would affect their behavior?

JB: Possibly. Not all are paid by the piece. So in my small study I conducted-it wasn't large enough to compare their experiences, those paid by the hours versus the piece-we showed a small difference in those paid by the piece, had a greater rate of reporting heat-related illness symptoms.

So, given that-but I think it's more intuitive, it makes sense that-those who are paid by the hour will feel more comfortable taking a break. And similarly, I think growers need to insist on breaks, particularly on those who are being paid by the piece, like, "You need to take a break. It's getting to a certain heat level. You need to take a ten-minute break, drink some water in the shade." But I think paid by the hour would help. It's not the only solution, but it'll help.

ET: Are there other issues related to human health and climate change, say, with other communities or populations, that you've thought of maybe studying in the future or that you think needs to be studied further?

JB: Sure. As part of my work with one of Oregon State's climate groups, Climate Impacts Research Consortium, CIRC, I have some funds. I'm working with a county up in southwestern Washington, a coastal community, to work through this-it's called the-BRACE framework. Also developed by CDC, it's Building Resilience Against Climate Effects. And it's this interview process by which communities can identify their local climate hazards and vulnerabilities. And do some projections on the corresponding health outcomes to those climate impacts. So, what's it gonna look like 30 years down the line, for heat-related illness for example, or air pollution, respiratory disease, things like that. And identifying interventions to help prevent the increase in those health-related 00:29:00outcomes. And all leading towards development of a climate and health adaptation plan. That's what I'm currently doing with the community in Washington. We're not, again, just looking at one climate impact or health outcome. It's being conducted in conjunction with the community side by side. So, it's a collaborative effort. "What are they interested in," because different communities have different interests.

ET: Am I correct in understanding that you work on BRACE with Oregon's Climate and Health Resilience Plan for the state? Is that correct?

JB: Oregon Health Authority received funds from CDC to conduct BRACE with counties in Oregon. And I was peripherally involved in that process. They dispense funds to six or seven counties and work with them to do BRACE. Now, I'm doing BRACE with a county in Washington because CIRC wanted to expand its work into Washington. We were a little Oregon centric. ET: Now I'd like to move onto 00:30:00some broader climate change questions. What were your earliest conversations on climate change like and how have they shifted over time? JB: My earliest, as a young person-probably growing up in a coastal community with sea level rise and coastal erosion. That's probably my first exposure to climate change. In my town in Carlsbad, they put in this big sea wall to help combat that. And it's still there. My parents walk that every day. Those are my earliest discussions, or exposure, to climate change. It's really coastal erosion, sea level rise.

It's evolved really, I think, consistent with my research of heat-related illness, disaster preparedness and impacts of natural disasters, as well as this broader approach working with communities. One of my main interests is trying to 00:31:00bring something tangible that a community can use. So it requires a lot of technical expertise to work through BRACE. Look at these climate models and disease projections. That's where me and others from CIRC can work with communities to help them.

ET: Can you speak more about CIRC and the community of climate change researchers at OSU, and how the institution facilitates this research?

JB: Yeah. So, again, Oregon State has several climate groups, mostly funded by NOAA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. CIRC's just one. And the main goal of CIRC is to put usable data in the hands of users to make decisions. Others in CIRC-I'm the only person looking at health-in another group are 00:32:00working at the same community I'm working with in Washington state, looking at sea level rise, coastal erosion. So working with members in that community on doing the projections and giving them different scenarios that have different impacts, from do nothing to put up a big sea wall, and what are the impacts of those options for them. So it's working with the community, help them make their own decisions. That's always the main goal of CIRC.

And there's other projects within CIRC, developing some software for these projections, called Envision. We have a community engagement component to CIRC. We have folks working on drought, forest fires-those are the big ones. A lot of work with utilities-it's a big stakeholder for CIRC, because they do a lot of work regarding climate because they're looking at this in the future.

ET: Are you concerned about diminished funding for climate change research?

JB: Yes.

ET: How do you foresee yourself coping with that?

JB: That's a very good question. I'm right in the middle of that now. I really articulated my strategy. But I think it has to do with how I brand it, how I present it, short of grant proposals or conference proposals coming out, specifically to climate change. I mean, they'll be in there, I can respond to that, but in the broadening to environmental health. I think, looking at it from the perspective of natural disasters, more acute events, you don't talk about climate change to look at what's the best way, or what are the health impacts of different acute national disasters, how do we reduce some morbidity mortality 00:34:00from acute natural disasters. Like in the earthquakes too-again, not climate related.

So I think broadening to an environmental health perspective: what's the impact in spread of infectious diseases from a natural disaster, flooding for example. It's still climate related. It just got me to think about how I present it, how I brand it. That's the reality that we're in right now, unfortunately.

ET: Based on your professional experience, and just your perspective in general, what policy changes would you like to see happen within the US, again, in the context of climate change?

JB: What policies to combat climate change?

ET: Yeah, changes in policy, and again, speaking more to your professional line 00:35:00of work.

JB: That's a big question. I guess into my work, all kinds of policies that we could implement to help climate change. Everybody could drive hybrids tomorrow. That would help but that's not gonna happen. So, in terms of the farm workers, there's many different policies that can be implemented there. Other states could-and probably should-implement heat rules, like California and Washington did, and make heat-related illness reportable. I think that would go a long way. It would explicitly identify farm workers as a population susceptible to this climate sensitive health outcome. That'd be huge. Oregon is considering it. There's some talk a little bit ago. It's early in the discussion, so they might reexamine it at a later date. But again, only two states have those heat rules. 00:36:00So that'd be a very important policy change.

Others regarding farm workers, again as head-related illnesses the most important climate-sensitive health outcome, a heat rule would go a long way.

Others, regarding preparedness, I'm not sure what kind of policy we could put in place. Education does not bring about behavior change. I'm not a behavioral scientist, but at least I know that. So handing somebody a brochure is not gonna get them to store supplies of food and water and have alternative heat source and cooking source, things like that. I think identifying renters, from my study that came up, working with property managers could be a very local, small change of policy that could be implemented to help renters. Property managers could 00:37:00help renters get prepared.

More broadly in my work, I think communities coming up with their own climate and health adaptation plans. Again, that's the end-product of going through the BRACE framework-is for each community to know their own local climate hazards, vulnerabilities, and expected health outcomes, to make local decisions, because it's always gonna be a local issue.

ET: You kind of touched on this, but what changes to public education do you think can help Americans better understand climate change, or potentially change of behaviors?

JB: I think an educated citizenry is a really important thing, be it climate and science, be it public health. There's a push five, six or seven years ago about getting public health and epidemiology curriculum into undergraduate training. 00:38:00Similarly, in climate science, I think it needs to start with K-12 education. And it is happening now. It's gonna come down to science teachers, teaching climate science, and I think environmental health as well. I think linking it to health is a natural way to get it to sink into people. It's gonna affect them, moving forward, their kids. So I think starting K-12 level is the best approach.

ET: Are you hopeful about the future of the planet, in the context of climate change?

JB: Yes, I am. I hope it doesn't come down to engineering our way out of this. But I think with smart people coming up with effective mitigation steps-but adaptation is a reality. So, I am very hopeful. I think more Americans will come 00:39:00to realize the impacts of a changing climate, how it's gonna impact their health, their security. Kind of going off a little bit, but I think-and the military's already thinking about this-they see it as a threat to national security, climate change. So between health and national security, I think those are two big motivations to do something about climate change. And I know I am hopeful. There's a lot of good people, a lot of smart people working on this.

ET: Well, that concludes the interview. Thanks for participating.

JB: Thank you, it was my pleasure.