That Bill Gates memo still makes me angry. What an absolute ass-hat. The fact that he was ever looked at as a climate leader is proof that we need better climate leaders.
I'm all for scientists leading the way, but they could learn a thing or two from the entertainment industry about how to connect with audiences. Neil deGrasse Tyson is popular because he's affable. He's not afraid to lean into his idiosyncracies.
I don't know what that looks like in the climate realm, but the prompt of "would I want to get a drink with this person?" is usually a good start.
Thanks for the thoughtful 4th of July tribute to climate scientists and their consistent research-based messages about climate change. Let's not forget that Bill Gates, just 5+ years ago, wrote the book How to Avoid a Climate Disaster. Which makes is all the more curious, dubious, that he wrote that screed a few months ago downplaying the climate crisis.
Thanks for another thoughtful column, Sammy. I would love to see a season of The Pitt that takes place during a major heatwave, when the ER is full of people suffering from heat stroke on top of other typical crises and the hospital HVAC system is under strain, for example. That kind of blend of entertainment and science could help bring the crisis home for many who are not connecting the dots.
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.
Science scars people. Plain and simple. The education system has failed in math and science. People like to bury their heads in the sand. Personally I fear for my grandchildren and their children. I am a research chemist and worked on Li-Ion car batteries among other things. The political climate is terrible as they only want to be reelected. Science scares even politicians because it tells the truth. It’s too scary for the general public because of the lack of sound education. I don’t understand why most people believe politicians as they really do not understand much. I hear words but they really say nothing substantial, not to mention they really never follow through on any campaign promises. I wish I had answers, but when the hurricanes come and their hours burn down from forest fires you only get a few more believers.
So many thoughts! But here's my audacious idea: PSAs promoting climate solutions during the World Series, Sunday morning Vatican telecasts and PBS Nova programs featuring the Pope, a Swedish scientist and Brent Suter, the first active American pro athlete to speak out against fossil fuel sponsorships in sports. We have to reach more people of all stripes and baseball and other games especially (hello World Cup) have huge broadcast audiences. But until somebody taps me and my gang to produce those PSAs, I'll keep trying to raise awareness-No Hushing Permitted-through various media forms and, importantly, helping to support EV test-drive & EV awareness events nationally. I love the latter because, for one, transportation is our No. One source of GHGs, and two, these volunteer-led events go beyond talk. We get "butts in seats." And we can do it with joy, maybe the best convincer of them all.
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.
Bill Gates' approach to climate change places far too much faith in technological innovation while failing to confront the demands of perpetual economic growth, overconsumption, and dependence on fossil fuels. His is a form of technoptimism that assumes future inventions will solve problems that require immediate political, economic, and behavioral change, otherwise know as failing to confront the crisis. Bill Gates doesn't embody "thoughtful exchange"; he embodies, let's continue extractive capitalism. IMHO Sammy's criticism aren't tough enough !
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.
That Bill Gates memo still makes me angry. What an absolute ass-hat. The fact that he was ever looked at as a climate leader is proof that we need better climate leaders.
I'm all for scientists leading the way, but they could learn a thing or two from the entertainment industry about how to connect with audiences. Neil deGrasse Tyson is popular because he's affable. He's not afraid to lean into his idiosyncracies.
I don't know what that looks like in the climate realm, but the prompt of "would I want to get a drink with this person?" is usually a good start.
Thanks for the thoughtful 4th of July tribute to climate scientists and their consistent research-based messages about climate change. Let's not forget that Bill Gates, just 5+ years ago, wrote the book How to Avoid a Climate Disaster. Which makes is all the more curious, dubious, that he wrote that screed a few months ago downplaying the climate crisis.
Thanks for another thoughtful column, Sammy. I would love to see a season of The Pitt that takes place during a major heatwave, when the ER is full of people suffering from heat stroke on top of other typical crises and the hospital HVAC system is under strain, for example. That kind of blend of entertainment and science could help bring the crisis home for many who are not connecting the dots.
I agree, this would be great! Possible you saw my column on this for LAT, but Grey's Anatomy did exactly this episode a few years ago: https://www.latimes.com/environment/newsletter/2025-06-12/america-is-moving-backward-on-climate-heres-how-hollywood-can-help
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.
Also the 30 year average is so deceiving. We should be using the 30 average from 1900 to 1930.
Science scars people. Plain and simple. The education system has failed in math and science. People like to bury their heads in the sand. Personally I fear for my grandchildren and their children. I am a research chemist and worked on Li-Ion car batteries among other things. The political climate is terrible as they only want to be reelected. Science scares even politicians because it tells the truth. It’s too scary for the general public because of the lack of sound education. I don’t understand why most people believe politicians as they really do not understand much. I hear words but they really say nothing substantial, not to mention they really never follow through on any campaign promises. I wish I had answers, but when the hurricanes come and their hours burn down from forest fires you only get a few more believers.
So many thoughts! But here's my audacious idea: PSAs promoting climate solutions during the World Series, Sunday morning Vatican telecasts and PBS Nova programs featuring the Pope, a Swedish scientist and Brent Suter, the first active American pro athlete to speak out against fossil fuel sponsorships in sports. We have to reach more people of all stripes and baseball and other games especially (hello World Cup) have huge broadcast audiences. But until somebody taps me and my gang to produce those PSAs, I'll keep trying to raise awareness-No Hushing Permitted-through various media forms and, importantly, helping to support EV test-drive & EV awareness events nationally. I love the latter because, for one, transportation is our No. One source of GHGs, and two, these volunteer-led events go beyond talk. We get "butts in seats." And we can do it with joy, maybe the best convincer of them all.
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.
Bill Gates' approach to climate change places far too much faith in technological innovation while failing to confront the demands of perpetual economic growth, overconsumption, and dependence on fossil fuels. His is a form of technoptimism that assumes future inventions will solve problems that require immediate political, economic, and behavioral change, otherwise know as failing to confront the crisis. Bill Gates doesn't embody "thoughtful exchange"; he embodies, let's continue extractive capitalism. IMHO Sammy's criticism aren't tough enough !
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.