"He also mused that electric cars “may be bad for America,” because “we’re just getting our butts kicked [by China] in a way that I think is bad and way more important than climate change.”"
Yglesias is profoundly ignorant about the current state of EVs. EVs are good for everybody except the oil industry. And China is going to dominate most ground transportation going forward if legacy auto doesn't quickly reverse its foolish efforts to delay the transition. Fully-electric and fully-autonomous, that's the future. If these words don't convince you, then watch this 11 minutes of Farzad explaining why.
Ugh, Sammy, a hard way to start Monday! In answer to your question, “Are these people really so determined to protect the fossil fueled status quo that they’re willing to send America back to the scientific dark ages, endangering countless lives?” A simple Yes. But Yglesias is clearly wrong. Democrats need to embrace climate issues, such as you suggest, tying them to affordability and quality of life, rather than competing with Republicans in the race to be Most Oily. My advice to Democrats: Go Big on climate, universal health care, gun control, student loan relief, etc. Serve the public interest.
Sammy, why don't you write an op-ed for the NYT refuting Yglesias? Or ghost-write it for a political celebrity who has a chance of being published (if that's a criterion). :-) K
Giving up on Science is like taking an express train back to the Dark Ages. Closing down science at weather centers, especially important for agriculture, and for pre-disaster weather event mitigation … makes no sense!
China will be the leading global power by 2030, yes 4 years of backwardness will do that to the USA, R&D $ will be spent in the EU, Brazil, SE Asia, not here. Our Universities will become glorified minor league sports teams! Not centers for educational excellence, progress!
I'm with you that there are few things as aggravating as seeing someone capitulate to fossil fuel industry talking points when they should really know better. Plus all the polling I've seen suggests that climate / clean energy is one of the few issues where Democrats consistently out perform the opposition. The challenge is how to link climate-friendly messaging with affordability messaging without getting caught in the trap set by fossil fuel companies and their enablers that preaches a world of energy scarcity and anti-consumer tradeoffs. The truth is that we can have our cake (clean energy) and eat it too (affordable energy).
This isn't a good-guy / bad guy situation. It's a matter of different frames of expertise and argument. Matt Yglesias is correct that social and political science shows Democrats need to be back in power if there's any chance of restoring science-based policy (on climate, vaccines and the rest), and the only path to retaking Congress involves states that are very different than California. We can discuss when we chat today! :)
The problem is that Matt Yglesias doesn’t do his research and is stuck in a Washington DC and consultant/pundit bubble. That doesn’t make him a good guy or a bad guy, but it does make him a mediocre journalist, at least on this topic. Sammy Roth does his homework and gets to know people and policymakers in many different places and sectors, which is why he is so effective.
"He also mused that electric cars “may be bad for America,” because “we’re just getting our butts kicked [by China] in a way that I think is bad and way more important than climate change.”"
Yglesias is profoundly ignorant about the current state of EVs. EVs are good for everybody except the oil industry. And China is going to dominate most ground transportation going forward if legacy auto doesn't quickly reverse its foolish efforts to delay the transition. Fully-electric and fully-autonomous, that's the future. If these words don't convince you, then watch this 11 minutes of Farzad explaining why.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rtt740mLFFA
Recommended for Yglesias: Mark Jacobson’s work, No Miracles Needed, https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/WWSStillNMN/StillNMN.html
Ugh, Sammy, a hard way to start Monday! In answer to your question, “Are these people really so determined to protect the fossil fueled status quo that they’re willing to send America back to the scientific dark ages, endangering countless lives?” A simple Yes. But Yglesias is clearly wrong. Democrats need to embrace climate issues, such as you suggest, tying them to affordability and quality of life, rather than competing with Republicans in the race to be Most Oily. My advice to Democrats: Go Big on climate, universal health care, gun control, student loan relief, etc. Serve the public interest.
Sammy, why don't you write an op-ed for the NYT refuting Yglesias? Or ghost-write it for a political celebrity who has a chance of being published (if that's a criterion). :-) K
Giving up on Science is like taking an express train back to the Dark Ages. Closing down science at weather centers, especially important for agriculture, and for pre-disaster weather event mitigation … makes no sense!
China will be the leading global power by 2030, yes 4 years of backwardness will do that to the USA, R&D $ will be spent in the EU, Brazil, SE Asia, not here. Our Universities will become glorified minor league sports teams! Not centers for educational excellence, progress!
Hi Sammy, you thought this column was bad, his substack is even WORSE. He doesn't get it and he's being a lazy reporter.
https://open.substack.com/pub/matthewyglesias/p/a-bolder-vision-for-american-energy?utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web
I'm with you that there are few things as aggravating as seeing someone capitulate to fossil fuel industry talking points when they should really know better. Plus all the polling I've seen suggests that climate / clean energy is one of the few issues where Democrats consistently out perform the opposition. The challenge is how to link climate-friendly messaging with affordability messaging without getting caught in the trap set by fossil fuel companies and their enablers that preaches a world of energy scarcity and anti-consumer tradeoffs. The truth is that we can have our cake (clean energy) and eat it too (affordable energy).
Thorough, thoughtful, and well researched reporting, Sammy. I felt the same fury about Yglesias, and you demonstrate why he is so out of his depth.
This isn't a good-guy / bad guy situation. It's a matter of different frames of expertise and argument. Matt Yglesias is correct that social and political science shows Democrats need to be back in power if there's any chance of restoring science-based policy (on climate, vaccines and the rest), and the only path to retaking Congress involves states that are very different than California. We can discuss when we chat today! :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWcRDcTIR78
The problem is that Matt Yglesias doesn’t do his research and is stuck in a Washington DC and consultant/pundit bubble. That doesn’t make him a good guy or a bad guy, but it does make him a mediocre journalist, at least on this topic. Sammy Roth does his homework and gets to know people and policymakers in many different places and sectors, which is why he is so effective.
Argh. Well, at least there's some good news. How about pushing balcony solar? Cheap, easy, and good for the climate.
Yes to all this. Thanks for speaking up for rooftop solar and climate action, Sammy!
Clean up this New Mexico mess, https://www.nmlandairwatersacred.org/sacrifice