There are some really great comments here about the intersection of culture and climate activism, which I can't add to. I just want to vent and say I'm so tired of seeing these constant media conglomerate mergers and dread the day when all the content is once locked up again in a cable subscription but without the physical cable.
Sounds good, I'll have to check it out. I don't think scolding has changed many minds, if any, and I'm not sure how many movies influence people to take climate action, if any, but encouraging respect for the environment, though not something that can be done overnight, is bound to help. I LOVED Don't Look Up — it may not make anyone take climate action, but I found it somehow hopeful and inspiring, especially that dinner table scene where what's-his-name says, "We really had everything." That's us now, and we do.
Although a movie may not directly get people to take climate action, movies and other pieces of culture can slowly seep into our consciousness and have a real effect — like Will and Grace.
I think the latter effect that you're describing is really the key thing — not that a movie is (most of the time) going to make someone immediately stand up and go take direct action, but the seeping-into-consciousness. Over time, if there's not a lot more climate seeping into consciousness, there won't be nearly enough direct action to move the needle.
"Is encouraging audiences to think about their lifestyle choices irresponsible, since Big Oil is the real villain?"
Big Oil has no reason to drill for oil without millions of people personally choosing to buy gasoline. Big oil would not be a powerful political entity without the $425 billion Americans spend on gas every year.
Sammy, most of your readers buy gasoline every week. You have the power to convince them to switch to an EV, but you never, to my knowledge, have taken the effort to do so. I'm taking the path of shaming and guilt-tripping Dems for supporting Trump when they purchase gas. I feel this works on people who are capable of feeling guilt over helping Trump, but I can only affect a few hundred or a couple thousand with my sign standing on the corner of 4th and Pico. You have a much greater reach with your column. I urge you to take a more explicit tact that will result in your readers (1) never buying another gas car, and (2) researching which EV will work for their daily driving, figure out where they will charge it, then save up and get it done.
I'm often criticized for my method, so I'd like to see someone, anyone, show me a better way. Over 40,000 Americans buy a brand new gas car every single day. Half those people are Dems. Seems those are the low hanging fruit who would be easiest to persuade.
Yes — and it's not just about individual choices. I can buy an EV (and I have; that's the only car my husband and I have), but it won't be an ideal car to drive if there isn't adequate charging infrastructure (there isn't). We could have no car at all if we lived in Paris, which has great public transit and trains taking you to other parts of the country; it's not so easy in the SF Bay Area. We need a system that supports consumers in making the best choices. No amount of shame and guilt will push people to make choices that don't work in their lives, nor will shame and guilt work on everyone. Plus, we need everyone to make these changes, not just Dems.
I agree that shame and guilt won't work on everyone. It doesn't have to. That it does work on a percentage of folks is all that matters because it causes them to take action so they will no longer feel guilty. Those people will never buy a gas car again and they will make a plan to switch to an EV as soon as possible.
The reality is that most car buyers can easily afford EVs now, and charging infrastructure is improving, in spite of Trump's efforts to slow it down. The Bay Area has very good Level 2 coverage, and Level 3 fast charging is arguably ubiquitous at this point and growing. Tesla has built out the network that works, so anyone with a Tesla has no problem charging. And since their NACS standard has been adopted by all other manufacturers, most everyone can now use their superchargers. That is a game changer and will result in more sales of legacy auto EVs.
Our goal is to kill the internal combustion industry completely as quickly as possible. Once gas-burning engines are no longer made, only EVs will be available to buy. We are on track to make this happen by 2035, a mere decade from now. When Joe MAGA walks into his Dallas, TX Ford dealer in January 2036, the only trucks available will be electric. Think about that.
There will still be hundreds of millions of gas vehicles operating worldwide in 2036, but those will age out over the following decade. After that, essentially all ground transportation will be electric and powered by an ever-greening grid.
That's the end game. And Sammy can help us get there faster.
Is Plug In America conversing with Elon Musk’s foundation on any EV campaign? NY Times reported last week: “Mr. Musk’s foundation now has until the end of 2025 to give away the donations [$393 million] it failed to give in 2024.”
Hmmm... that's interesting. I'm going to pass this along to Joel Levin at Plug In America and see if they can go after some of this. Also Kitty Adams of Adopt A Charger. Who knows, it could work and that would be a very good thing.
I also enjoyed "Train Dreams" but I'm not sure how much, if at all, it moves the needle on important environmental issues. Yes, we need different types of sustainability stories for all types of audiences. But historical dramas are tricky because it's all in the past, so it's hard to feel a visceral connection to the story or the setting.
In contrast, HBO has a reality show called "The Last Woodsmen" that follows a logging crew in the Pacific Northwest as they harvest giant cedar trees. It's high stakes work, like "Deadliest Catch" but with hard-to-reach trees and chainsaws.
Both depictions are useful for illuminating an industry that few people really understand. The challenge is how to give the natural world a louder voice in the debate between conservation and economic development.
Thanks for the heads up about The Last Woodsmen! Hadn't heard about it...FWIW, I talked with a bunch of other people after the Train Dreams screening who had the same reaction I did, the visceral reaction to the story and setting with connection to modern issues. That won't be the case for everyone, probably not even for most people, but that was kind of my point here...lots of different stories for lots of different people.
Maybe that's what I get for watching at home instead of a theater where there are minimal distractions. The story has to fit the medium, and vice versa. Hopefully the studios and streamers don't abandon the movie theater experience altogether.
There are some really great comments here about the intersection of culture and climate activism, which I can't add to. I just want to vent and say I'm so tired of seeing these constant media conglomerate mergers and dread the day when all the content is once locked up again in a cable subscription but without the physical cable.
Hey Doug, really appreciate your reading and taking the time to comment! Sorry about the lack of an edit button. Always feel free to weigh in...
'when all the content is locked up again...' (no edit button on substack?)
Sounds good, I'll have to check it out. I don't think scolding has changed many minds, if any, and I'm not sure how many movies influence people to take climate action, if any, but encouraging respect for the environment, though not something that can be done overnight, is bound to help. I LOVED Don't Look Up — it may not make anyone take climate action, but I found it somehow hopeful and inspiring, especially that dinner table scene where what's-his-name says, "We really had everything." That's us now, and we do.
Although a movie may not directly get people to take climate action, movies and other pieces of culture can slowly seep into our consciousness and have a real effect — like Will and Grace.
I think the latter effect that you're describing is really the key thing — not that a movie is (most of the time) going to make someone immediately stand up and go take direct action, but the seeping-into-consciousness. Over time, if there's not a lot more climate seeping into consciousness, there won't be nearly enough direct action to move the needle.
"Is encouraging audiences to think about their lifestyle choices irresponsible, since Big Oil is the real villain?"
Big Oil has no reason to drill for oil without millions of people personally choosing to buy gasoline. Big oil would not be a powerful political entity without the $425 billion Americans spend on gas every year.
Sammy, most of your readers buy gasoline every week. You have the power to convince them to switch to an EV, but you never, to my knowledge, have taken the effort to do so. I'm taking the path of shaming and guilt-tripping Dems for supporting Trump when they purchase gas. I feel this works on people who are capable of feeling guilt over helping Trump, but I can only affect a few hundred or a couple thousand with my sign standing on the corner of 4th and Pico. You have a much greater reach with your column. I urge you to take a more explicit tact that will result in your readers (1) never buying another gas car, and (2) researching which EV will work for their daily driving, figure out where they will charge it, then save up and get it done.
I'm often criticized for my method, so I'd like to see someone, anyone, show me a better way. Over 40,000 Americans buy a brand new gas car every single day. Half those people are Dems. Seems those are the low hanging fruit who would be easiest to persuade.
Yes — and it's not just about individual choices. I can buy an EV (and I have; that's the only car my husband and I have), but it won't be an ideal car to drive if there isn't adequate charging infrastructure (there isn't). We could have no car at all if we lived in Paris, which has great public transit and trains taking you to other parts of the country; it's not so easy in the SF Bay Area. We need a system that supports consumers in making the best choices. No amount of shame and guilt will push people to make choices that don't work in their lives, nor will shame and guilt work on everyone. Plus, we need everyone to make these changes, not just Dems.
I agree that shame and guilt won't work on everyone. It doesn't have to. That it does work on a percentage of folks is all that matters because it causes them to take action so they will no longer feel guilty. Those people will never buy a gas car again and they will make a plan to switch to an EV as soon as possible.
The reality is that most car buyers can easily afford EVs now, and charging infrastructure is improving, in spite of Trump's efforts to slow it down. The Bay Area has very good Level 2 coverage, and Level 3 fast charging is arguably ubiquitous at this point and growing. Tesla has built out the network that works, so anyone with a Tesla has no problem charging. And since their NACS standard has been adopted by all other manufacturers, most everyone can now use their superchargers. That is a game changer and will result in more sales of legacy auto EVs.
Our goal is to kill the internal combustion industry completely as quickly as possible. Once gas-burning engines are no longer made, only EVs will be available to buy. We are on track to make this happen by 2035, a mere decade from now. When Joe MAGA walks into his Dallas, TX Ford dealer in January 2036, the only trucks available will be electric. Think about that.
There will still be hundreds of millions of gas vehicles operating worldwide in 2036, but those will age out over the following decade. After that, essentially all ground transportation will be electric and powered by an ever-greening grid.
That's the end game. And Sammy can help us get there faster.
Is Plug In America conversing with Elon Musk’s foundation on any EV campaign? NY Times reported last week: “Mr. Musk’s foundation now has until the end of 2025 to give away the donations [$393 million] it failed to give in 2024.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/02/us/politics/elon-musk-foundation.html?unlocked_article_code=1.7E8.O2dt.QXoJ8U8NJJEI&smid=url-share
Hmmm... that's interesting. I'm going to pass this along to Joel Levin at Plug In America and see if they can go after some of this. Also Kitty Adams of Adopt A Charger. Who knows, it could work and that would be a very good thing.
I also enjoyed "Train Dreams" but I'm not sure how much, if at all, it moves the needle on important environmental issues. Yes, we need different types of sustainability stories for all types of audiences. But historical dramas are tricky because it's all in the past, so it's hard to feel a visceral connection to the story or the setting.
In contrast, HBO has a reality show called "The Last Woodsmen" that follows a logging crew in the Pacific Northwest as they harvest giant cedar trees. It's high stakes work, like "Deadliest Catch" but with hard-to-reach trees and chainsaws.
Both depictions are useful for illuminating an industry that few people really understand. The challenge is how to give the natural world a louder voice in the debate between conservation and economic development.
Thanks for the heads up about The Last Woodsmen! Hadn't heard about it...FWIW, I talked with a bunch of other people after the Train Dreams screening who had the same reaction I did, the visceral reaction to the story and setting with connection to modern issues. That won't be the case for everyone, probably not even for most people, but that was kind of my point here...lots of different stories for lots of different people.
Maybe that's what I get for watching at home instead of a theater where there are minimal distractions. The story has to fit the medium, and vice versa. Hopefully the studios and streamers don't abandon the movie theater experience altogether.