Inconvenient Chats

Inconvenient Chats approaches climate change through the questions people often avoid because they are messy, technical, political, or morally uncomfortable. The show is conversational, but it is not loose. Jan and Kaiser usually begin with a plain premise, then sharpen it into a more useful problem. Should climate action be argued through self-interest? Does an individual matter more through lifestyle change, influence, or work inside large systems? What happens when wars force planes, ships, markets, and governments into more carbon-intensive patterns? These are the kinds of questions the show keeps returning to. Jan's economist background gives many episodes a practical frame around prices, incentives, productivity, and household costs. Kaiser's political science background keeps the conversation attentive to institutions, public choices, human rights, and the limits of business-case thinking. The pair can sound skeptical of tidy answers, but the skepticism is constructive. They are trying to make the argument usable. Recent episodes have covered carbon value added tax, the EU emissions trading scheme, geoengineering risks, emissions from wars, vegetarian choices, climate communication, and why people care about sustainability in the first place. The show often moves from abstract climate pressure to concrete examples: food prices, rerouted flights using more fuel, shipping routes affected by conflict, or everyday decisions around groceries and travel. It also allows the personal to enter without turning the conversation into confession. There is room for irritation, uncertainty, and small domestic stories at the edges. That balance matters. Inconvenient Chats works best for listeners who want climate discussion with policy texture, economic consequence, and a willingness to question the framing before accepting the answer.