All those words, Sammy, and not a single one telling your readers to stop buying gas-burning cars. Why?
Americans are buying over 40,000 brand new gas cars every day. That's a target-rich environment. Half those people are Dems, so they should be open to a message explaining why it's a bad idea to perpetuate such a destructive industry, especially since EVs are cheaper than gas cars and have been for many years.
According to the EIA, over 70% of all oil use is for gasoline and diesel.
We can literally kill the entire global internal combustion industry by 2036, a mere decade from now. Once there are no more new gas cars sold, all future vehicles will be electric. Existing gas cars will age out over the following decade leaving an essentially 100% electric fleet.
Think about that, in just 20 years, we can completely eliminate all gasoline and diesel use globally. Eliminating 70% of oil use will have major benefits to our environment, but also our politics since the oil industry spends hundreds of millions in every election cycle making sure conservative politicians keep environmental legislation at bay.
Sammy, I urge you and all other enviro writers to use your outdoor voices to yell as loudly as possible to your audiences to stop buying gas cars. Whether you use shame, or some other method, you need to help convince people to help kill this industry that's caused us so much harm.
I just don't understand the attack on Bill Gates. What's his motivation? If anyone in the public sphere embodies thoughtful exchange, it's Gates. He is, in fact a scientist at heart. Your ad hominem against his voice is ironic, to say the least. for someone to say, "he just doesn't understand climate" is not credible. And distilling his "screed" down to a polemic is misinformation, or disinformation-- I'm never entirely sure what the difference is. Gates is a technologist who puts his money where his mouth is, including energy. I agree that the economics more than pencil on climate action, and I adamantly agree that innovation and entrepreneurship, displayed by Chinese companies and Americans, among others is the pathway to reducing emission. I believe, as I've said before that Gates essential message is that the market is lifted to a position to take off. He's not a denier, and he hasn't thrown in the towel. Would that other billionaires were as thoughtful and active in the holistic way Gates is.
Please devote a column or two to explain the positions of thoughtful climate scientists and economists who feel that the effects of climate change will not be as severe as mainstream scientists believe. Also explain why the mainstream people on these fields believe that they are wrong.
All those words, Sammy, and not a single one telling your readers to stop buying gas-burning cars. Why?
Americans are buying over 40,000 brand new gas cars every day. That's a target-rich environment. Half those people are Dems, so they should be open to a message explaining why it's a bad idea to perpetuate such a destructive industry, especially since EVs are cheaper than gas cars and have been for many years.
According to the EIA, over 70% of all oil use is for gasoline and diesel.
We can literally kill the entire global internal combustion industry by 2036, a mere decade from now. Once there are no more new gas cars sold, all future vehicles will be electric. Existing gas cars will age out over the following decade leaving an essentially 100% electric fleet.
Think about that, in just 20 years, we can completely eliminate all gasoline and diesel use globally. Eliminating 70% of oil use will have major benefits to our environment, but also our politics since the oil industry spends hundreds of millions in every election cycle making sure conservative politicians keep environmental legislation at bay.
Sammy, I urge you and all other enviro writers to use your outdoor voices to yell as loudly as possible to your audiences to stop buying gas cars. Whether you use shame, or some other method, you need to help convince people to help kill this industry that's caused us so much harm.
I just don't understand the attack on Bill Gates. What's his motivation? If anyone in the public sphere embodies thoughtful exchange, it's Gates. He is, in fact a scientist at heart. Your ad hominem against his voice is ironic, to say the least. for someone to say, "he just doesn't understand climate" is not credible. And distilling his "screed" down to a polemic is misinformation, or disinformation-- I'm never entirely sure what the difference is. Gates is a technologist who puts his money where his mouth is, including energy. I agree that the economics more than pencil on climate action, and I adamantly agree that innovation and entrepreneurship, displayed by Chinese companies and Americans, among others is the pathway to reducing emission. I believe, as I've said before that Gates essential message is that the market is lifted to a position to take off. He's not a denier, and he hasn't thrown in the towel. Would that other billionaires were as thoughtful and active in the holistic way Gates is.
Please devote a column or two to explain the positions of thoughtful climate scientists and economists who feel that the effects of climate change will not be as severe as mainstream scientists believe. Also explain why the mainstream people on these fields believe that they are wrong.