Below the Radar Transcript
Episode 22: Working through a climate emergency — with Kai Nagata
Speakers: Melissa Roach, Maria Cecilia Saba, Jamie-Leigh Gonzales, Rachel Wong, Am Johal, Kai Nagata
[theme music]
Melissa Roach 0:07
You’re listening to Below the Radar, a knowledge mobilization project recorded out of 312 Main. This podcast is produced by SFU’s Vancity Office of Community Engagement.
Maria Cecilia Saba 0:17
Below the Radar brings forward ideas to encourage meaningful exchanges across communities.
Jamie-Leigh Gonzales 0:21
Each episode we interview guests on topics ranging from environmental and social justice, arts, culture, community building, and urban issues. This podcast is recorded on the unceded territories of the Musqueam, Squamish, and Tsleil-Waututh peoples.
[theme music]
Rachel Wong 0:45
Hi, I’m Rachel Wong and thank you for tuning into Below the Radar. This week, our host Am Johal sits down with Kai Nagata, who is the Communications Director of Dogwood BC. In this conversation, Kai and Am talk about the purchase of the Trans Mountain Pipeline by the Canadian government in the context of our current ‘climate emergency’ here in Canada. They also talk about how Dogwood BC fits into the current political landscape. Kai sees Dogwood BC’s role as channelling public anxiety and stress around such issues and working to hold elected-government officials accountable. For Kai, the big question that citizens should be asking our governments is who they are really fighting for.
[theme music fades]
Am Johal 1:37
Great, welcome to Below the Radar. We’re really lucky to have Kai Nagata with us, Director of Communications with Dogwood BC. Welcome, Kai.
Kai Nagata 1:45
Thanks a lot for having me. It was a bit of a trek to get into studio, so...sorry for the wait.
Am Johal 1:50
(laughs) Just down the hallway at 312 Main. Well Kai, you have a lot on your plate going into the fall, here. We’re in the middle of a climate emergency, and basically every level of government, both here in Canada but also just about everywhere, this is such an important issue. Wondering if I can just begin of how you’re reading the political situation into the federal election in October?
Kai Nagata 2:22
Well I can’t say that the choices are super inspiring. You’ve got a Conservative party that’s held majority power in Canada in the recent past that seems to be rife with climate change deniers and overly cozy with White supremacists and other unsavoury folks — you know, not a lot of folks I talk to want to give those guys a majority government any time soon. And then you’ve got a Liberal party that is extremely cozy with the same big corporations that have run Canada since its inception that seems pretty inauthentic in terms of what it promised voters in 2015 versus what it actually delivered, and which of course is planning to build a pipeline with at least $15 billion in public money in the middle of a climate emergency, which is something that a lot of the folks who elected them in 2015 are pretty disappointed about. And you’ve got — I don’t know if I’ll go into the Bloc Quebecois and the offshoots from those — but, you know, there are some smaller parties and political formations. You got a couple independents running in Markham and Vancouver-Granville, former cabinet ministers who have sort of rebranded themselves as independent truth-tellers, which I think is a welcome addition to the parliamentary scene. And then you’ve got the New Democrats and the Green Party who seem to be jockeying for those votes of folks who are freaked out about the climate crisis and unhappy with the sort of Pepsi or Coke choices that they’ve had for the last 150 years. So both of those parties struggling to consolidate their vote in enough ridings to have an impact in the next parliament. So if I could pick a preferred outcome, I mean I think it would be a minority where all those folks are forced to work together to pass legislation, but you know, we don’t pick the outcomes, we just have to work with them once voters make the choice.
Am Johal 4:13
The campaign against the Trans Mountain pipeline has been so interesting ‘cause it’s taken so many twists and turns over many years, and you’ve been sort of a front row, watcher-advocate-organizer around this, and just when the federal government went in and actually bought the pipeline that was quite alarming in and of itself, let alone kind of what’s happening in the background now, the financing issues and other regulatory pieces, the recent approval — I’m wondering if you can sort of walk us through the ups and downs of that process of organizing, because there’s been a lot of amazing coalition work that’s happened, particularly here in BC.
Kai Nagata 4:55
Sure, so I’ll start earlier before the Trans Mountain project was proposed when the sort of flagship idea to get Alberta bitumen to the West Coast was the Northern Gateway pipeline through the Great Bear Rainforest as it’s known, or through Northern BC, territories of the Coastal First Nations, and we saw this unprecedented alliance of First Nations communities and fishing families and folks in coastal industries as well as people up and down the province who said “No, that’s a bridge too far. We don’t want oil tankers going through the North Coast.” And it seemed like a much simpler, black and white debate when it was Stephen Harper and the Chinese state-owned oil companies and Enbridge trying to force a pipeline through, you know, a bunch of — I won’t say untouched — but a part of BC that had sort of a mythical space in people’s imagination as like the home of the spirit bear and all the humpback whales. For folks in Vancouver, that was really galvanizing, it was a really clear and easy fight.
Kai Nagata 6:00
And after that project was defeated, of course, the oil companies put the foot on the gas to get Trans Mountain through as sort of a hedge strategy. And that has been a much different debate, and in a way it’s strange to me, when you step back and look at it, because it’s a bigger project that would put far more people at risk in terms of flaming tanks of diluted bitumen or oil spills, and goes through a bunch more political turf, a lot more politically sensitive area than Northern BC which only has a few ridings, a few representatives. And yet, we’ve seen an erosion of the sort of level of public animosity towards the project over years and years as the oil patches engaged in a bunch of parallel and very effective strategies to de-motivate and confuse and in some cases downright misinform people. So we’re at a point where a project like this has never been so close to getting across the goal line, even as we’re in the middle of a climate emergency, and you’ve got a federal government that’s actually not just backing it with state resources in terms of cash to build the thing, but threatening to use defence forces, i.e. the military, and other tools at their disposal in order to force this thing through. It’s become a national priority. So it’s interesting to reflect back on, like you say, those twists and turns and think about where we went wrong as a movement to find ourselves in this position now, and where there might be some hope going forward.
Kai Nagata 7:35
But yeah, we’re in a situation where you have a liberal-centrist Prime Minister who was elected on a whole suite of climate promises, saying that no relationship was more important to him than that of Canada and its Indigenous peoples, and here he is trying to ram through a pipeline without consent or permission from local communities, and using our taxpayer dollars to do that. So it’s been an interesting ride and I think that in stepping back from it, I can see some of the points where, in a sense, it was a lot simpler when it was mean, Conservative politicians trying to force this thing through, and now people are dealing with the fact that as they look at the federal election, there’s another party that they really don’t want to get elected lurking in the wings, and so a lot of folks are being pressured to support the Liberals even though they’re trying to ram through the pipeline in BC, out of fear of electing the Conservatives if they don’t.
Am Johal 8:37
At this stage, where the recent approval just went through, from an organizer’s perspective, what kind of tools and strategies do you have at this stage in terms of disrupting, slowing down — are there legal means or other organizing means that you could be taking part in in terms of the environmental movement?
Kai Nagata 8:56
Yeah, so there are a couple of parallel strategies underway, and I think that you can’t ignore the significance and the impact, obviously, of the court challenges that have been brought, mostly by Indigenous communities and also by some conservation and environmental groups. Really, those are about forcing Canada to follow its own laws, as they are written, to follow their own constitution and to make decisions about projects like this on the basis of Canadian law. So those challenges have been successful in the past, in stalling both the Enbridge-Northern Gateway pipeline and Trans Mountain, but the government seems intent on building even while those matters are before the courts, and so there are other strategies that have to be brought to bear if you want to put friction on a project like that, and so those are the political strategies. And because there is no longer the option of putting pressure on shareholders, now that it’s publicly owned — it’s essentially nationalized — you can’t go into boardrooms in Houston or New York and say “This is a bad investment”.
Kai Nagata 10:02
So that avenue is closed, but it does open up the option of direct political pressure on the MPs who would have to sign off on buying and paying for the expansion. So that’s where we see our role, is basically channelling some of that public anxiety and distress around the climate emergency towards holding their Members of Parliament accountable and making it clear that they don’t support spending public money on, you know, another massive subsidy to the oil industry when that money, $15 billion, could be spent on any number of other priorities. So we found that is the most effective message, and that is what the federal government handed us when they bought the pipeline and vowed to complete it with public dollars is that everybody has an opinion about how public money should be spent, and whether you characterize it as tax dollars, using the rhetoric developed by Grover Norquist and the Republicans and you talk about public money, everyone has ideas about where they would spend $15 billion, and a pipeline is very low on that list of priorities.
Kai Nagata 11:13
So when we worked in Burnaby-South in the byelection earlier this year, we went and talked to people on the doorstep and asked them what they needed from the federal government, and most people, their top two answers were better public transit and more affordable housing — both of which are within the federal government’s bailiwick and they could put billions of dollars into those problems and make people’s lives better in a material sense in the short term. And when you ask them ‘how do you feel about them spending that money on building another pipeline through Burnaby?’ that’s when you can really see public opinion turn, and so I think that is the question, and that is actually, if you ask it about public money, you still have a large majority of Canadians onside. They don’t want their tax dollars going to building this thing, especially in the context of the climate emergency, and so you need to be able to channel that and put that in front of politicians and either convince them not to support that expenditure or if you are faced with a politician who is bound and determined to push that through, then to hold them accountable at the ballot box.
Am Johal 12:18
So there was recently an election in the province of Alberta. Four years before, I was actually in Fort McMurray the night Rachel Notley got elected and —-
Kai Nagata 12:28
Wow, that must have been surreal!
Am Johal 12:30
Yeah, very surreal! And certainly since Jason Kenney’s been elected, he’s brought a lot of aggression around attacking civil society organizations, be it their funding, be it their approach, and also building a kind of PR war room to go against any kind of opposition to the pipeline. It’s quite unprecedented in terms of the scale in terms of recent memory of the last couple of decades, and I’m wondering how people in the environmental community have been addressing or dealing with Alberta government resources going into this level of aggressive, public relations strategy and media management?
Kai Nagata 13:16
Well I have a few thoughts on that. I think that it’s another subsidy. It’s really interesting to see public money being spent on oil industry propaganda, and I think we got a sense of why that might be when some folks complained to the Canadian advertising standards body — I can’t remember what the organization is called — and basically the response was that if it’s a government ad, the same standards around accuracy don’t apply. So it’s a loophold: if industry is advertising as the government, then they can say whatever they want about the project and they’re held to a lower standard than if it was a private advertiser. So you have this merger of state and corporate interests in Alberta, it’s been going on for a long time, this is just the most explicit and recent example, and I think it’s a sad commentary on a government that has painted itself so far into a corner that it has nothing to offer its own people in terms of a vision of an economy that might be exciting to be part of other than to just let international oil companies build whatever they want with public money. Yeah, Kenney promises to file lawsuits and hire a bunch of guys to reply on Internet forums and social media and correct the record, and I think he’s honestly kind of spinning his wheels. He made the promise during the campaign, and now he has to deliver and show Albertans that he’s going to bat for them. But if their material circumstances don’t change and if they don’t feel like their lives are getting better, there’s a certain point at which that same anger that elected Jason Kenney starts to turn against Jason Kenney, and so I think he’s gotta stay ahead of that as best he can and he’s gonna try to create external enemies and spend as much energy and money as he can trying to direct that anger outwards and stoking that narrative of victimization and saying that Alberta’s hard done by and the rest of the country is ganging up on them. But at a certain point, people are going to start to ask if there’s anything else that their politicians are gonna offer them other than just trying to blame other people for their own policy choices.
Kai Nagata 15:35
So you know, my glib response is it’s a great gift to the environmental movement, it’s a great fundraising opportunity, you know, having a big, mean, oil industry-affiliated premier appointing a bunch of industry executives to cabinet and then spending a bunch of public money going after us by name, that’s always good for mobilizing people, organizing people, fundraising. But I do worry long term about the government getting into this game, because I think that sooner or later, people are going to start to take it offline, and they are playing with some pretty dangerous currents in Alberta society right now and ginning people up about scapegoats and outside enemies, you know, minorities and environmentalists, so I think those targets start to merge in people’s brains and there’s a lot of online threats that I worry about moving to the offline, real world space, and I think that the Alberta government is now complicit in amplifying that sort of anger and hysteria, so I don’t think this ends well and it is distressing to see, again, public money being spent on that instead of any number of other programs or services that they could offer the people of Alberta.
Am Johal 16:57
Yeah, oftentimes in looking at the expansion of pipelines, the arguments that are invoked by government or industry have to do with economic benefits, and there are some in the environmental movement and others that have come from a more fiscal conservative background from Alberta. Interestingly when Matt Hern and I were working on a book, after the book came out, we got contacted by some of these groups around real concerns around the financial viability of the oil sands and the extent to which Canadian charter banks and others were financially exposed…
Kai Nagata 17:34
Yeah, they were up to their eyeballs.
Am Johal 17:35
Yeah I’m just wondering to what extent those economic arguments, the environmental movement, is deconstructed, because oftentimes it’s just taken as a truism that the expanding the tar sands are an economic benefit in a broad sense, and what your critique is of that.
Kai Nagata 17:56
Well I think there’s a difference between economic benefit for oil CEOs and banks and economic benefit for the people of Alberta, the workers in the industry, or the people of Canada more broadly, and I think that our politicians have been a little bit too quick to conflate those two when they talk about the economic benefits of the national interest, they’re more often repeating the talking points given to them by the banking lobbyists and the oil CEOs. So to give an example that other folks have used, the jobs in Alberta are not coming back, even if there’s a boom in investment, you know, automation and corporate consolidation is going to limit the number of actual human beings that you need driving those trucks or operating controls in oil field operations, and that trend is unlikely to reverse anytime soon. So if you’re relying on big, mega projects to create employment, then you’re stuck in a cycle where you have to be breaking ground on something really big every couple of years in order for those contractors to be able to move around and continue to have work. You know, when it comes to pipeline construction, there would be a number of Canadian folks who would be employed and are employed, building out new pipeline infrastructure. There’s also a highly mobile international workforce of people who specialize in these kinds of projects, and when you have such low unemployment numbers as we have in Canada and so many projects being built, there’s actually a need to import, whether it’s unskilled labour from other countries or highly skilled, highly specialized labour from other countries that reduces the amount of employment that goes to Canadian communities or which stays in Canada. And then finally, the idea that deepening our dependence on a single commodity, a single export resource — in this case, heavy crude oil — in the current context seems like a shaky bet when you are looking at, whether it’s new marine fuel standards coming in that will limit the use of high sulphur fuels in transport ships worldwide, or you’re looking at efforts in China to electrify bus fleets and passenger vehicles, or you’re looking at folks in India leapfrogging some of the traditional fossil fuel energy sources and going straight to renewables.
Kai Nagata 20:32
It doesn’t, to me, look like a bright future for crude oil exports, but we don’t really have the choice in Canada of .. .it’s very hard to question that when you’re dealing with so much, propaganda, frankly, coming from the banks that are invested in these projects now and the companies that have committed to this business model of what’s called rip and ship economics, right? Just getting crude oil out of the ground as fast as possible and liquidating it off shore. I worry sometimes that that is the endgame, that basically companies can read the newspaper and see the writing on the wall, and what they want to do is basically get as much oil out of the ground now at current prices as they can, regardless of where it goes or what price it gets, because that is better than having to write off reserves that have to stay underground, if and when the world gets its act together and limits oil consumption. So this idea that we’re being fed, that this will lead to some new golden age of prosperity in Alberta and that it will pay for the renewable energy transition, I think is pretty hard to substantiate. It looks more to me like you have a bunch of banks and oil companies that are worried about losing money, and they would rather sell oil now at 50 or 60 bucks a barrel than try to sell it tomorrow at 20 or zero.
Am Johal 22:07
So here in BC we have an NDP and a Green government, and I'm wondering, here in the province, what the nature of your campaigns have looked like? There’s been some high profile issues like Site C, LNG expansion and others, and I’m wondering what the political context looks like for you in terms of advancing environmental policy.
Kai Nagata 22:30
So for the last 10, 12 years, a lot of the oxygen has been sucked up by these pipeline campaigns in BC, often to the exclusion of other campaigns which is unfortunate. So when Dogwood was first started 20 years ago, we were focused on local forestry issues, on urban sprawl, you know, the idea has always been to try to arm people with an analysis and the tools to participate in their democracy at the local level, and to give people more self-determination as a community over what happens to their land and their resources. So we worked with First Nations and local communities in BC to try to amplify the voices of local people against big corporations, oftentimes from far away and governments that have not been responsive to those local concerns. So that very quickly got sucked into these two massive pipeline and oil tanker fights and a lot of our focus at the provincial level has been about trying to get provincial politicians to stand up for their constituents, especially on the coast, in the face of these big, international oil mega-projects. In purchasing the Trans Mountain pipeline, Trudeau has handed us a really interesting situation where the project cannot go forward without public money, and so the conversation becomes about our priorities as a country and how we spend our tax dollars, and it’s becoming clear that the big mega-projects in Canada can no longer stand up on their own two feet, and in the context of climate change and climate action worldwide, it’s going to take more and more corporate welfare just to get these big mega-projects built. And so, not just Trans Mountain but the Royal Dutch Shell and the Petronas Consortium that wants to export a bunch of fracked gas from Kitimat.
Kai Nagata 24:29
You know, the LNG Canada project doesn’t have a single Canadian partner, it’s all foreign state-owned oil companies and Shell, and they are going to pull down $6 billion in subsidies from the provincial government in return for gracing us with their presence in BC. And so you have this situation where governments are competing, falling over themselves, to offer these lucrative tax breaks and incentives to global oil companies in order to come and perch in their jurisdictions and extract the resources there, and so this is forced us to look at our own backyard and the whole subsidy angle has us looking at Site C in a different light. If in fact the rate payers in BC are building a mega dam in order to power fracking operations in the northeast or to power liquefaction of gas at terminals, that is an indirect subsidy to industry on the order of billions of dollars. And if we’re gonna offer them cheap power in order to convince them to stay and extract our resources, that is a subsidy! And so, it is forcing us to look at how these pieces fit together. It’s not just about one pipeline or one project or one company, it’s about a system where taxpayers have a parasitic relationship with these international oil companies that are in fact absorbing a lot more public resources than what is obvious on paper. And when you add up all the infrastructure that we build for them and the discounts and tax breaks that we give them, and the revenue that we don’t collect — whether that’s on royalties or corporate taxes — or the stuff that they manage to ferry out of the country and sock away in international accounts and tax havens, you’re looking at billions and billions of dollars a year that is unavailable to the government to spend on any other program or priority, and so it’s forcing a re-think of our campaigns at the provincial level. I will say that for now we are focused on federal politics, and that is the window that opened up, the federal election provides an opportunity to talk to people about federal issues. But after that, we’re gonna be taking a hard look at the degree to which the BC government has traditionally subsidized these massive international companies and asking whether the benefits that accrue to British Columbians are in any way equal to what we are giving away in order to convince them to stay.
Am Johal 27:12
Now in the provincial context, Dogwood was also involved in the campaign around proportional representation, and some time has passed since that campaign is over, but I’m wondering if you have any thoughts about or idea about why that plebiscite wasn’t successful.
Kai Nagata 27:35
I think that the only way that a change campaign is successful is if you can make the case that the current circumstances are intolerable, and that if people are willing to vote for change, that their circumstances will change. Listen, I think there were mistakes made all around, including at Dogwood, we were just one of the third parties that was a participant, there were dozens of others on both sides of the issue. You know, we took the position that proportional representation on balance would provide for more power for individual British Columbia citizens and perhaps an escape from the sort of ping pong game from successive Liberal and NDP governments that has led to some of the policies that I described earlier. I think what was difficult was crafting a coherent narrative about what was wrong, and I don’t think that collectively as the ‘Yes’ campaign, we were able to articulate the problem and the solution early enough in the campaign. And so, the ‘No’ side — which had some pretty talented communicators in their ranks, including Bill Tieleman, who I know has been on this show.
Kai Nagata 29:02
They very successfully built a story about the uncertainty and hassle of switching to a different voting system where all the details hadn’t been ironed out, and I think for most people, the choice became pretty easy since the change wasn’t linked to any kind of great crisis in their own life or a looming situation that they found intolerable or unable to sustain. So yeah, it wasn’t a high stakes referendum for most voters in British Columbia — evidently, since they didn’t participate, and so yeah, I think we could’ve told a story about the ways in which corporate control of our political parties lead to outcomes for everyday British Columbians that are contributing to the anxiety and despair that people feel about their own household finances or the environment but we didn’t go with that message and I think that the results speak for themselves. People of BC made a choice, and we have to respect that.
Am Johal 30:16
Yeah, you know, interesting when the STV ones were happening in the 90s, a couple referendums that ran during the elections, I always felt that if they had gone with MMP as an option then when there seemed to be an appetite, that it likely would’ve passed. Or in this instance, it might have been far closer had there been a specific option rather than one of three. If it had been MMP versus the status quo, it could’ve been closer. But woulda, shoulda coulda! And I imagine that we’ll be talking about this again.
Kai Nagata 30:47
In 25 years
Am Johal 30:48
In 25 years or, or 10. Things move quickly these days. I had a question about the federal Green party environmental plan that includes some version of an Energy East-type campaign. It’s kind of an old energy nationalism sort of plan that was floated in Canada in the 50s and the 60s…
Kai Nagata 31:13
Yeah, like an energy efficiency idea?
Am Johal 31:15
Yeah, it’s an interesting nationalist argument but I wasn’t expecting the Green party to be putting it out there, but I’m wondering what your political reading of their platform is around environmental policy.
Kai Nagata 31:29
Well, I think that part was a little baffling. The entire document felt rushed, and I think that the goal was to get it out ahead of the NDP climate plan. That seems to be tactically what led to the timing of the release, and yeah there’s a section in there about making Canada basically energy independent, and that would mean that we would stop imports of foreign oil, and on the East Coast that means that you have to supply refineries presumably, which are in Levis (Quebec) and Saint John, New Brunswick, and are served by tankers. So if those aren’t gonna be served by tankers anymore from quote unquote “foreign oil sources”, you gotta build a pipeline, or find some other way of getting crude oil to them, because they don’t have a lot of oil production in those provinces. So it was an odd chapter, I guess, in Canadian environmentalism. I don’t know whether the Greens will be in a position to implement this grand vision, but the difficulties were made apparent on day one when the Quebec Green Party said no effing way. We are not going to sign onto this because you would have to build a pipeline through Quebec, and we just beat Energy East. So I think that was a, you know, I applaud the Green Party for throwing ideas out there that other parties aren’t willing to grapple with, seeing where they land. In this case, I think that one was a bit of a dud.
Am Johal 32:54
Any final messages for our audiences as they think about who they’re gonna be voting for in the federal election?
Kai Nagata 33:05
Yeah, I would really encourage people to take a look at who is running in their riding, and we’ll have a website up where you can punch in your postal code and find out who is actually running to represent you in the community where you live, because one of those people is going to be your member of parliament after the federal election. And in Canada, what a lot of us forget is that we cannot vote for the Prime Minister. We are not voting for even a political party, we are voting for a list of people who are competing for one spot to represent us as the MP, and those MPs get together and debate policy and choose a leader, actually it’s up to parliament who the Prime Minister is. So unlike the United States, there are no primaries for the party nominations that the public can participate in, and we don’t get to choose the president or the prime minister in an election. And so rather than focusing on this national horse race and the campaign that the big news outlets will be resourcing and riding the busses and bringing us coverage every day, I would encourage people to spend what energy they have to spend on politics looking at the people running locally, because a lot of the strategic voting narratives and a lot of the national campaigns you’re gonna hear are going to sound something like “You don’t like these guys, so vote for these guys to stop them.” And that is just not accurate or helpful in most local ridings in BC.
Kai Nagata 34:40
There are unique local dynamics and there are unique local candidates that are running for a variety of parties, and some of them as independents, across BC and we want to elect, I think, a diverse mix of people from different perspectives who are going to fight for their constituents and have a relationship and are accountable to people at that local level. And if we roll the dice and we end up with a minority government, it’s gonna become that much more important to have a relationship with your local MPs that you can pressure them on the policies that matter to you, because things’ll be a lot more volatile, as we’ve seen in the provincial context with the Greens holding the balance of power, and it will be up to citizens what those MPs prioritize and what policies they support. So if you’re worried about the climate crisis, absolutely, you gotta wake up and worry about the whole wide world and all the bad things that are happening. But when it comes to voting, I would encourage people to really focus down on the local level and look at who is running in their riding.
Am Johal 35:41
Thank you so much Kai, and we didn’t even talk about Donald Trump once.
Kai Nagata 35:45
Ah, it feels good, doesn’t it? Thanks for having me.
[theme music]
Rachel Wong 35:55
Thank you again to Kai Nagata for joining us on Below the Radar. If you want to learn more about Dogwood BC and what they do, you can visit them at their website, dogwoodbc.ca. We’ve linked to them in the episode description below. Thank you as always to the team that helps to put this podcast together: our production team which includes myself, Rachel Wong and Maria Cecilia Saba. Thanks also to Davis Steele for our theme music, and of course, thanks to you for listening. We’ll talk to you next time on Below the Radar.
[theme music fades]