A few hundred years ago, coffee was almost an unknown commodity with hardly a handful of countries consuming it at a commercial scale. But today, it is a sought-after drink that drives multiple companies to compete for the world’s best beans.
An estimated 21 billion pounds of green coffee are produced annually across more than 25 million acres worldwide. U.S., Brazil, and Japan are the top coffee-consuming countries.
Though late to the caffeinated party, China is now driving global demand. In the 2023-2024 crop year, China’s consumption reached nearly six million 60-kilogram bags, while domestic production stood at less than two million bags. The balance was imported.
But will this global java joy be interrupted by production shortfalls caused by climate change? A simple Google search will yield thousands of news articles about how a warming world is killing Arabica and Robusta coffee beans.
I am currently based in India where tea is king. But coffee consumption is on the rise and could soon reach levels seen in Scandinavia, Canada, and Indonesia. Coincidentally, I am writing this from a city just few hours away from the largest coffee-growing region in the country.
“There have been difficulties in terms of water (and) temperatures, but (they have) not affected production majorly because (they are) not something new,” says Suhas Dwarkanath of Benki Coffee.
This was confirmed by India’s Commerce Ministry, which has allayed fears about weather disruptions and projects higher coffee output for 2024-25. The Indian Coffee Board has set a 10-year road map for doubling the country’s coffee production and exports.
While focusing on weather impacts, analysts and media often overlook other factors that can significantly influence coffee crops.
Colombia, for example, has experienced important benefits from improved agronomic practices. In fact, the coffee crops have benefited from adaptation to changing climate and enhanced pest-control methods. These two factors have been credited for Columbia’s record 2024 production of coffee beans, which is expected to be as much as 20% higher than the previous year’s.
Likewise, Brazil has seen an increase of 32% in production this year. Brazil contributes over a third of the global coffee supply and is the primary producer of Arabica beans, making up approximately 75% of the world’s coffee production.
Coffee Under Worst Case Scenario
It is important to note that most of the fear surrounding a rise in future temperatures is based on erroneous climate models that are currently being used for forecasting. These models are notorious for glaring errors, including the exaggeration of greenhouse gases’ warming effect and the failure to account for other causes of warming.
Even if temperatures do rise significantly, coffee production can be moved to cooler locales at higher altitudes and at latitudes farther from the equator. For instance, conducive to growing both Arabica and Robusta are Southern California and alternative regions in existing coffee-producing countries like Brazil and India.
In Colombia, researchers modeled “climate suitability and crop-yield for current and future climate scenarios” and included factors such as soil constraints, pest infestation and socio-economic elements. They found that the “foothills along the eastern Andean Mountain ranges, the high plains of the Orinoquía region and the wet parts of the Caribbean region” are highly favorable to growing coffee if average temperature were to increase.
In Ethiopia — one of the world’s largest coffee producers — climate change was found to increase the suitable growing area by as much as 44% by 2080.
Likewise, the plateaus in China’s Yunnan Province are expected to have acreage suitable for growing coffee increase significantly in scenarios assuming future warming.
None of this takes into account improved coffee hybrids that can increase yields by 30-60%. Researchers have now found that these varieties have greater resistance to climatic changes and to pests.
I think it is safe to say that our coffee supply is secure for the foreseeable future. So, the next time you hear that the emissions of your internal combustion engine are endangering your morning cup of joe, take it with a grain of salt — or perhaps with a cup of salted caramel cappuccino.
This commentary was first published at American Thinkeron January 13, 2025.
Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
In Germany, the good times and prosperity are on the brink … stuck economy is stuck in a multi-year recession… producers laying off staff by the hundreds of thousands…costs for energy, food and rents are going through the roof … the outlook for the future is bleak
Even the online edition of the renowned newspaper FAZ (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung) occasionally flags headlines such as “We are in a terminal multi-crisis“ at the top of its homepage.
How did it get this far?
Who used which tricks, and will we ever get out of it?
Figure 1: The industrial decline of Germany (and with it Europe) is becoming increasingly apparent (YouTube screenshot 1)
If we look for the reasons for this misery, we quickly find a common denominator: Germany’s prescribed “transformation to a CO2-free economy,” which involves an extremely costly total restructuring of almost the entire infrastructure and industry. This begins with electricity generation and the grid and extends to the production of steel and aluminum as well as chemicals and automotive production. At the same time, nuclear power plants, which once reliably supplied up to 30% of Germany’s electricity virtually free of CO2, have been shut down for purely ideological reasons. In addition, the wealth of expertise that our industry has built up over generations is being largely devalued, thus giving away our technological lead over other nations. This is all justified by the alleged “harmfulness to the climate” of the CO2 released by burning coal, gas and petrol. Thanks to an incredibly massive propaganda campaign that has been running non-stop for decades over all the media, in politics and in schools, we are nudged to think that CO2 is warming the climate to such an extent that it is going to make the earth largely uninhabitable. In 2021 already, the highest German court took advantage of the smokescreen created by this media barrage to authoritatively settle the (actually scientific!) question of the harmfulness of CO2 for our climate, Figure 2:
The reasoning comprehensively set out in the BVG court’s decision corresponds in principle one on one to the climate doctrines of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) of the United Nations, also parroted by state institutions such as the Federal Environment Agency (UBA) and advisory bodies such as the German Advisory Council on the Environment (SRU). Although there are numerous and some high-ranking (e.g. Nobel laureates) critics of these climate doctrines, the BVG high court did consult any expert opinions to the contrary and has therefore declared itself to be competent. Thus, an issue that is anything but scientifically undisputed has been “clarified” once and for all by pure lawyers.
Figure 3 shows the extent to which the BVG’s ruling is at odds with scientific reality. NOAA is a reputable US authority that has been in existence for decades and whose findings can in no way be dismissed as unscientific. The BVG court’s ruling therefore brings back unpleasant memories of medieval-style judgments against scientists such as Galileo Galilei.
Back in the 17th century, he had shown that, contrary to established doctrine, that the earth was not flat, but a sphere that revolved around the sun and not the other way around. Today, people are no longer tortured for years in inquisition cellars for such dissenting scientific findings, but nevertheless mediatic character assassination and career setbacks as a “climate denier” for such heretics are widely viewed as legitimate procedures.
Violation of the fundamental right to freedom of science and teaching
By elevating the IPCC theses to a legally unchallengeable dogma, the German Constitutional Court also violated the protection of freedom of science and teaching, Figure 4:
Figure 4: The fathers of the Basic Law expressly stipulated the freedom of science, research and teaching in Article 5 (4).
However, the judges in Karlsruhe are in good company with this violation. In particular, our just recently highly decorated former chancellor Merkel had few inhibitions about violating the protection of science from state interference when, in January 2018, she strongly condemned alleged diesel pollutant tests which had been targeted by a media shitstorm against the Rheinisch-Westfälische Universität Aachen 5) and called for an investigation. The same Angela Merkel also acted unconstitutionally in February 2020 on the occasion of the election of Thomas Kemmerich as Minister President of the Free State of Thuringia 6). During a press conference in South Africa, she characterized the parliamentary decision as “unforgivable” and demanded “the result must be reversed”. In Germany, such breaches of constitutional law, even at the highest level, seem now to be considered as peanuts attracting neither public interest nor any consequences. And our constitutional judges will probably only smile away any constitutional lawsuit targeting their verdicts.
The trick with nature conservation
Looking back, we can see that the success of the green ideologues at the Federal Constitutional Court was the result of a clever strategy. The first step in 1994 – under then conservative chancellor Helmut Kohl – was the placement of a seemingly harmless Trojan horse in the German Basic Law, in the form of a completely innocuous-sounding additional Article 20a, Figure 5:
Figure 5: Article 20a 7) of the German Basic Law on the protection of the environment, nature and animals, introduced in 1994 and extended to include animal protection in 2002
Even on careful reading, there is nothing in Article 20a of the Basic Law that would force Germany to destroy its industry and thus its prosperity in favor of the ideological construct of “climate protection”, and that this should also be done at the instigation of non-German plaintiffs. Nevertheless, with its “climate ruling” of March 24, 2021, the Federal Constitutional Court has ruled to enshrine precisely these demands once and for all for Germany.
The original Article 20 of the Basic Law complemented by Article 20a contains self-evident basic principles of democracy and state organization: the statement that the Federal Republic of Germany is a democratic and social constitutional state, and that all power emanates from the people, who exercise it through elections and votes. The bodies established correspond to the classic tripartite division into legislative (parliaments with two chambers), government and judiciary. It is also stipulated that the parliaments are bound by the constitution, while the government and judiciary are bound by law. Finally, the right of all Germans to resist anyone attempting to abolish this order was defined – probably intended at the time as a sedative for opponents of the emergency laws.
Destruction of the foundations of the state, step 2: The new Article 94 of the Basic Law
In its climate ruling, the Constitutional Court went far beyond its remit – compliance with existing laws – and thus granted itself powers that only the legislature is entitled to 8). It would actually have been the parliament’s task to counter this violation of the constitution. Instead, today’s green ideologues and their useful idiots in the old parties are pursuing the goal of stifling the slowly emerging resistance to the forced „transformation“ of our economy by amending the constitution. In doing so, they are using the slander initiated and promoted by Chancellor Merkel against the most important opposing political force – the AfD party, who have been framed as “Nazis” against whom a “firewall” must be erected and maintained. The culmination of this project is the amendment to the Basic Law that has just now been hastily rushed through on December 28, 2024. This timing ensured that the grand coalition of climate doomsayers and warmongers could not be stopped by dissenters that might become much stronger after the snap elections slated for February 23, 2025. The amendment is allegedly intended to protect the constitutional court from the evil AfD and BSW parties. In reality, however, the constitution is being turned completely on its head.
Constitutional courts elevated to lawmakers
We all had “civics“ in our school lessons. We were told that the rule of law includes the principle of the separation of powers. These powers are the legislative (parliaments), the executive (government) and the judicial (courts). This tripartite division is intended to prevent one of the three powers from rising above the others by arrogating additional powers to itself and thereby undermining the balance of power.
The Federal Constitutional Court’s climate ruling discussed above already provided a textbook example of such an encroachment. Even in the current push to disempower the people, the core statement of the revised Article 94 of the Basic Law initially sounds quite harmless to the inexperienced reader, Figure 6:
Figure 6: The decisive passage of the new version of Article 94 of the Basic Law 9) seems completely harmless in principle when you read it. The law was rushed through in view of the upcoming snap elections, in which the AfD could gain substantially more votes. Timeline: Adoption in the Bundestag on December 19, 2024, in the Bundesrat on December 20, 2024 and promulgation in the Federal Law Gazette on December 27, 2024, automatically bringing it into force on December 28, 2024.
The explosive nature of this article is that it gives the judges of the Federal Constitutional Court legislative power, allowing them to patronize not only the government but also the parliament. Their decisions have direct legal force. In stark contrast, parliamentary legal initiatives have to be presented, justified and decided in lengthy and time-consuming manner to the parties, the media and the people. Instead of the tried and tested separation of powers, the constitutional judges now have the power to enact their own laws. All it takes is a conspiratorial group of just five out of eight constitutional judges.
Assessment by Prof. Werner Müller
Prof. Dr. Werner Müller, researcher at the Department of Economics at Mainz University of Applied Sciences until 2023, criticizes the new law 10) in no uncertain terms. It is “a flagrant violation of Article 79 of the Constitution, according to which amendments to the Basic Law which … affect the principles laid down in Articles 1 and 20 are inadmissible. These include the principle of popular sovereignty under Article 20 para. 2 sentence 1 (All state authority emanates from the people) and the separation of powers under Article 20 para. 3 of the Basic Law“…. He continues: “The law of December 28, 2024 now also officially disempowers parliament. According to the new Art. 94 para. 4 of the Basic Law, the constitutional judges, who are selected in back rooms according to their political reliability, can arbitrarily determine what the parliament may still be allowed to decide and are not subject to any democratic control. [Their] power is similar to that of the Guardian Council in the Islamic Republic of Iran.“
Figure 7: Headline of an editorial in the online edition of the FAZ 11) Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung from January 3, 2025 (Translation: Apocalypse researcher: “We are in an end-of-the world multi-crisis” By Melanie Mühl Jan. 3, 2025. Can only radical change prevent the end of the world? An interview with researcher Robert Folger about dystopian scenarios, our apocalyptic tone in debates and the demotivating self-pity of the “last generation” (Image: screen printout, edited).
The consequences
In a roll-call vote in the Bundestag, 600 MPs voted in favor of this law, with only 69 against. Interestingly, 26 out of 28 Left Party MPs also voted in favor. Not too surprising given their communist roots.
This change in the law was a dark day for Germany, as it cements the downward spiral into which we have fallen as a result of the disastrously damaging energy, climate and economic policies of the Greens (to the inclusion of our “climate chancellor“ Merkel, who is conservative only on the surface but deep green inside. Her legacy consisting of a catastrophically dilapidated infrastructure is now being compounded by the Ukraine conflict, which Germany continues to support with billions, even though it has long since been lost militarily, as even Springer’s “Welt” has now had to admit 12).
The green “transformation” will continue to ruin the industry, which is already under severe strain, or drive it abroad. To top it all off, the judiciary is now being handed over to the green forces on a silver platter. Who can protect Germany from green-influenced constitutional judges in the future? Two-thirds majorities are almost impossible to achieve on such highly controversial issues. On the other hand, smirking Green MPs will torpedo any legal resistance to the current course thanks to their secure blocking minority.
Snake-oil selling profit hunters will praise their newest “CO2-free“ technologies, while serious investors will go elsewhere. In three to five years at the latest, the CDU/CSU and FDP MPs who have now voted by name for this amendment to the Basic Law will have to answer to their voters for the country’s inexorable decline. Will then Mr. Lindner, Mr. Merz, Mr. Scholz or Mr. Buschmann still think their support for this green trap was a good idea?
Abstract: Using the CERES satellite data, it is shown that over the last ~ quarter century, the increase in greenhouse gases has had no detectable effect on the global average surface temperature. On the contrary, the overall increase in available solar energy after albedo reflections is shown to be sufficient to explain the warming. In support of this, variations in available solar energy are shown to agree quite well with the variations in the observed temperature. Go figure.
I got to thinking again about how to measure the efficiency of the very poorly-named “greenhouse effect”, which has absolutely nothing to do with actual greenhouses like the one shown above. Here’s an overview of some of the major energy flows of the climate system.
Figure 1. Monthly surface upwelling longwave (thermal) radiation, along with solar radiation at different altitudes. Equivalent temperatures are calculated using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. Seasonal variations removed.
The red line shows the 24/7/365 global average solar radiation that strikes the planet, 340 watts per square meter (W/m2) of planetary surface area. However, part of that radiation is reflected back out to space.
The orange line shows the 241 W/m2 of solar radiation remaining after clouds, aerosols, and the surface reflect some of the sunlight back to space. Other than a tiny contribution from the geothermal heat, this is the total energy entering the climate system. It’s all we’ve got.
Then aerosols, water vapor, and clouds absorb some of the remaining solar radiation before it hits the ground. The yellow line shows how much of the solar radiation is actually absorbed by the surface itself. At only 164 W/m2, it’s less than half of the solar radiation striking the top of the atmosphere.
Before moving on to further questions, please take a moment to look at Figure 1 and contemplate the surprising stability of the overall system. The clouds, ice, plants, and snow that determine the albedo are constantly changing on an hourly, daily, and monthly basis. Despite that, Figure 1 shows that the amount of energy entering the system (orange line) and the amount reaching the surface (yellow line) barely change from year to year.
Coincidence? You be the judge. But I digress …
Here’s the perplexitude. All solids and most gases are constantly absorbing and emitting longwave radiation. The amount of radiation emitted depends on the temperature, so this is sometimes called “thermal radiation”. And on average, because of its temperature, the surface of the earth is emitting almost 400 W/m2 of upwelling longwave thermal radiation. See the blue line at the top in Figure 1.
That’s the puzzle. Less than half of the 400 W/m2 energy flux that the surface is emitting comes from the sun. Where is the rest coming from?
The answer is that some of the upwelling longwave energy from the surface is absorbed in the atmosphere by clouds, aerosols, water vapor, and what are called “greenhouse gases” or “GHGs”.
At the same time, these clouds, aerosols, water vapor, and greenhouse gases are constantly radiating the energy flux they are absorbing from both the downwelling solar radiation and the upwelling longwave (thermal) radiation. Of course, it’s emitted in the form of longwave (thermal) radiation.
Since the atmospheric thermal radiation is emitted in all directions, about half of it proceeds to space and the other part goes downwards and is absorbed by the surface. And that downwelling thermal radiation is the source of the extra energy that allows the surface to radiate more than just what it gets from the sun. For further information on this question of the so-called “greenhouse effect”, let me recommend my post below.
Looking at Figure 1 reveals that we can measure the overall efficiency of this “greenhouse” system by calculating how much radiation the surface emits for each W/m2 it receives from the sun. Overall, the system receives about 240 W/m2 of energy flux from the sun, and just under 400 W/m2 is emitted by the surface. So the general answer is that the surface emits about 1.65 times the total energy flux that the planetary climate system receives from the sun (solar radiation after albedo reflections).
What I have just calculated, the amount of surface energy flux emitted per 1 W/m2 of incoming solar energy flux, is a measure of the overall efficiency of the greenhouse system. It measures how well the so-called “greenhouse effect” is able to convert solar energy into surface warming. I’ll return to this discussion of greenhouse efficiency in a moment.
Now, the blue line in Figure 1 above shows that over the period of record, the surface upwelling thermal radiation has increased slightly, by about 0.9%. That is because the surface temperature has increased. Here’s a closeup of the change starting in 2000.
Figure 2. A closeup of the surface upwelling longwave radiation shown in Figure 1 above (blue line in Figure 1). As in Figure 1, temperatures are calculated using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. Seasonal variations removed.
The obvious question is whether this increase in the surface temperature is the result of increasing “greenhouse gases”, which are CO2, methane, water vapor, nitrous oxide, halogenated gases, and other minor greenhouse gases. According to the IPCC and the canonical theory, the increasing greenhouse gases are indeed what is causing the surface warming shown in Figure 2 above.
Now, if the increase in those GHGs is what has been driving the increase in surface temperature (and surface thermal radiation), that would show up as an increase in the efficiency of the greenhouse system. More greenhouse gases would absorb more upwelling thermal energy flux from the surface, leading to more downwelling energy flux. This would make the surface warmer for the same amount of incoming solar energy flux. That change would be reflected as an increase in the greenhouse efficiency as calculated above.
But as Figure 3 below shows, there’s been no observable change in greenhouse efficiency in the last quarter century.
Figure 3. Greenhouse efficiency, a dimensionless number calculated as the thermal energy flux emitted by the surface (in W/m2) divided by the solar energy flux entering the system (solar radiation minus albedo reflections). This measures how efficient the system is at converting incoming solar energy into increased surface temperature.
I must confess, I was surprised by this graph. I’d expected the efficiency to have risen somewhat due to the increase in greenhouse gases. But there’s no significant trend.
This is an important finding. Despite increasing GHGs, there has been no corresponding increase in greenhouse efficiency since the turn of the century. This means that whatever is driving the temperature increase shown in Fig. 2, it’s not increasing GHGs.
Note that I’m not saying that the GHGs don’t increase the downwelling longwave radiation. They do. They absorb more upwelling radiation and thus perforce, they increase the downwelling radiation. I’m saying that the increase in downwelling radiation is NOT showing up as an increase in surface temperature. If it were, we’d see it in the efficiency calculations shown above.
My next question was, is it possible that this greenhouse efficiency measurement is too crude to detect the expected change in efficiency from increased GHGs? To determine if this is the case, I looked at the change in efficiency that we’d expect to see from the increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gases over the period. Figure 4 below shows the trend of the expected change in efficiency from increased GHGs (orange line).
Figure 4. As in Figure 3, but with the addition of the trend of the increased efficiency expected from the increase in the well-mixed greenhouse gases (orange line). Per the IPCC, the total effect of all greenhouse gases (GHGs) combined is about twice the effect of the CO2alone. So in Fig. 4, the increase in total GHG radiation is calculated as twice the increase in CO2 radiation. See the end notes for the full calculations.
If the increase in surface radiation were the result of increased greenhouse efficiency from the increased well-mixed GHGs, it would show up in Figure 4 above as the efficiency increasing with a trend as shown by the orange trend line. So the greenhouse efficiency measurement is quite sensitive enough to detect the theoretical increase due to increased GHGs.
But in the event, since the year 2000 there’s been no such increase in greenhouse efficiency. There’s no such trend.
So … what’s going on here? That’s really two related questions.
The first question is, where is the extra energy for the known surface warming coming from? Clearly, it’s not coming from the increased GHGs, or we’d have seen an increase in greenhouse efficiency.
The second question is, what has happened to the increased downwelling thermal radiation from the atmosphere? We know that the increased GHGs are causing increased downwelling radiative flux because we can measure it from satellites … but it’s not causing increased surface temperature. We know that energy can’t be created or destroyed … so what’s happening to it?
Regarding the first question, the extra energy must be coming from the sun. Aside from the GHGs, it’s the only other game in town. To demonstrate that the sun is totally sufficient to explain the rise in the planet’s surface temperature/thermal radiation, Figure 5 below is a graph comparing the surface upwelling thermal radiation to the solar input radiation times the average greenhouse efficiency (~1.652).
Figure 5. Surface upwelling longwave (thermal) radiation in red. Black and black/white lines show the solar input radiation (TOA solar minus albedo reflection) times the average greenhouse efficiency (1.652).
Note how closely the variations in the output (surface radiation) correspond to the variations in the input (the amount of solar energy flux entering the system). Both show the same rise-level-rise-level-rise pattern, in the same amounts and at the same times. This shows that the changes in surface temperature are exactly what we’d expect from the change in solar input, given the average efficiency of the system as a whole.
In other words, a greenhouse gas explanation is not needed and is indeed superfluous over this period—given the known greenhouse efficiency, the surface temperature is responding to the change in solar input exactly as expected … while in the background, Occam quietly hones his razor …
Regarding the second question, which was … hang on, what was it? … oh, ok, it was, what has happened to the increased downwelling thermal radiation from the atmosphere, since we know it’s not warming the surface?
Let me refer folks to my post below entitled “The Details Are In The Devil”. It discusses the problem of relating changes in downwelling radiation to changes in temperature in an actively governed system, which is a large part of the answer to the second question.
Another part of the answer to the second question is in the following post:
There are more answers to the second question. There’s advection. There’s sensible heat loss from the surface. There’s Nino/Nina-driven transport of warm water to the poles to speed up energy loss to space. Then there are the giant natural refrigerators we call “thunderstorms” cooling the surface in a myriad of ways …
… but that’s enough for now. Further affiant sayeth naught.
Here, after a foggy week, it’s a bluebird day. I can see the sunlight on the ocean six miles (ten km) from my house, my grandkids are laughing in the next room, what’s not to like?
Best of life to all,
w.
The Usual: When you comment please quote the exact words you are discussing. I can defend my words. I can’t defend your interpretation of my words.
The Math: First, the required trigger warning.
Then, the data. It’s a small (20 kb) .csv file in my public dropbox here.
Next, the math.
The variables are:
coshort—the monthly atmospheric CO2 levels for the period analyzed
surf_lw_up_all_mon—monthly surface longwave up, all-sky conditions (not just clear skies)
toa_avail_all_mon—monthly available solar radiation after albedo reflections
themult—monthly efficiency factor as calculated in Fig. 3, surface thermal radiation divided by available solar radiation
coforce—monthly total GHG forcing in W/m2
theco—GHG forcing expressed as a change in greenhouse efficiency
The functions are:
log2—logarithm base 2
first—first value of a series
mean—average value
getfitted—returns the linear fit (regression line or trend line) of a variable as a series of values
Comments are whatever follows the hashmark “#” on a line.
The calculations in R computer language are:
> coforce = log2(coshort / first(coshort)) * 3.7 * 2 # monthly total GHG forcing over the period
> theco = (coforce + mean(surf_lw_up_all_mon)) / mean(toa_avail_all_mon) # monthly GHG forcing expressed as a change in greenhouse efficiency
> theco = theco - first(theco) + first(getfitted(themult)) # adjust it to start at the start of the red fitted linear regression line in Fig. 4.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Energy Bad Boys Isaac Orr and Mitch Rolling join District of Conservation to give their take on President Trump’s Day One executive orders. Tune in to learn more!
