Thanks Bill! I too feel things are starting to settle a tiny bit. I think our work will still be hard but there’s a feeling of a little more optimism.
I am so excited to read that “heat pumps outsold fossil fuel furnaces in the U.S. for the first time this year!“ per Leah Stokes.
And, thanks for the reference to Mary Annaïse Heglar‘s piece. This has stuck with me when she wrote: “But what if the thing that’s burning you out is the same thing burning the planet up? What if you can’t quit — quietly or otherwise — because to do so would be to give up on the future?” A sentiment I have felt.
Looking forward to 2023 and helping my local community to eat their carrots 🥕 in the IRA. Happy New Year!
Bill I think you need to stop obsessing about the negativity on Twitter. It's everywhere. Get used to it. It was on Twitter before Musk and is there now. If you think it's worse than pre-Musk I expect that is based on your perspective. Stuff that would not get through censors now does so now the nastiness comes from both sides. I could say suck it up but that would not be nice. This is not a "fighting" comment" and I don't even pay a subscription. Maybe one day I will. When I start to see your writing making more sense and being more open to other perspectives. But Musk has done a big service to the Twitter community and made it a more viable and relevant platform. Many people that had been banned for posting anti-narrative comments have been allowed back. I particularly noticed this banning trend related to the COVID situation but I'm sure it was common in climate-related stuff too. I'm talking about qualified scientists and journalists and doctors that posted comments disagreeing or contesting the narratives around vaccines, COVID treatments etc. Banned forever to Twitter heaven but resurrected by Musk. Certainly Musk needs to temper the angry beasts that wade too far into crudeness and into insults and obscenities and I expect that will happen. But Bill, you are getting pretty close to some of these things in your substack so I think you might be the pot calling the kettle black. And as for Greta Thunberg, her comeback to the attack on her was just a crude response to crudeness. I don't see why you were impressed by that. She should have just ignored the attacker. Your comments about that person make it seem that his approach to criticism is the way all criticism of perspectives such as your's or Greta's are made. I think that is just not so. But by being so much on the "fighting" side, you are inviting this type of response. As for you opinions on climate change, you have the right to them. Many disagree with your extreme perspective, including myself and don't see that "renewable" "solutions" you promote as viable. So maybe if you work hard to convince instead of fighting and attacking you will be more respected and taken more seriously. I don't see that as now being the case outside of the group of the "converted" that I might say you preach to now. I'm happy to know your perspective but even moreso if presented in a reasonable way. Your fighting words just don't do that and they often make you look foolish. You clearly have some very strong views on climate change and how it should be addressed and I like to hear them. I'm not the only one. But without all the nastiness of your "fighting" words. Please. Maybe one day I'll even pay for a subscription.
I'm a long time progressive and activist/organizer, and the newsletter writer for our local 350 group, 350marin in California, Bill. So, of course, I've cheered your fantastic efforts over the years, helped organize and joined countless fossil fuel divestment actions, and I share your excitement that, with the IRA, the US finally at least started the massive job of shifting our energy sources to renewables. Yet, your comments supporting the experimental Covid vaccines specifically (not vaccines generally, which I, too, think are great tools), further confirm the worry I've been telling my 350marin colleagues and other friends about for months: The liberal/progressive left (and in particular, the Democrats as a party) with their uncritical support for the Big Pharma-led, publicly-financed, liability-free, proprietary vaccine and treatment-focused response are undermining public's trust in the left's ability to manage huge, centrally organized projects like the transition away from fossil fuels without corruption. This is already hurting our efforts on climate, and I believe that the damage to our climate cause will increase as the problems with the mRNA vaccines become more apparent as time goes on.
Stay with me on this. I know you're a very science-focused person, and I urge you to take another look recent data: the warning signals from population and study data are becoming clear, IMO, for any objective person to see who comprehensively reviews it from all sources as I have – not just the industry-captured CDC and FDA references.
I'll put a few links below to start with from two well-known and widely followed UK doctors, Dr. John Campbell and cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra. Until this year, they were strong supporters of the mRNA vaccination program but now are both calling for an immediate stop to use of those vaccines until their effects are further studied. Denmark no longer recommends vaccines for those under 50 unless immune compromised, vaccination of the young in Scandanavia has generally been avoided (unlike the US, which has pushed it to infants). Inquiries on potential nMRA dangers are underway in the EU and UK – and not just 'political', 'culture war' events, but science-based. I'll also include a link to the study re-evaluating the original Pharma-owned mRNA data (release of which was finally forced released by FOIA from the regulatory agencies and Big Pharma) and showing the incidence of serious adverse events appear to outweigh protection benefits. Authors include a senior editor of the BMJ (British Medical Journal) and a former associate director of NIH.
Having, like me, been an activist on climate for decades and fought Big Oil's corruption of both the public conversation and public policy over that time, we both should know better than to underestimate the power of Big Pharma to control and corruptly control public conversation of science and policy as well. I ask that you, as a leader of the climate movement, please dig deeper. I think you'll be surprised and disturbed by what you find.
Study: Serious Adverse Events of Special Interest Following mRNA Vaccination in Randomized Trials
“The excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest surpassed the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization relative to the placebo group in both Pfizer and Moderna trials”
Cardiologist Dr. Malhotra describes how the death of his father and deeper research changed his view on the mRNA vaccines in the first part of this interview:
Dr. John Campbell's statement on Rumble last week that data indicates the risk/benefit analysis has changed and he now believes we should pause the mass mRNA vaccination program:
Have you written / pondered about how much actual sacrifice normal people will need to make to attain a sustainable climate? A lot of the climate movement seems to focus on the energy companies as the "enemy," but surely the energy companies are just following the global rise in demand for energy? Have you ever asked your followers how many would forego plane flights? Meat? New laptops and smart phones? Heating? Etc. I think this is one reason the climate movement is losing. Right Wingers by denying the climate crisis, propose that this kind of consumer lifestyle can continue but obviously it can't. So what comes after, actually?
I think we need a different mythology and ideal of heroism... but this also means we need a different vision of a future that is radically more amazing than what we have now. This for me is why 350 and XR don't fully catch on: They don't put forward a vision for what the amazing future is, if we reduce/re-use/de-grow... Is it just living with less, while the Earth's ecosystems buckle a bit slower?
I have tried to answer my own question in my books, including How Soon Is Now. I see the "consciousness movement" as part of the answer: People can explore the inner dimensions of consciousness using psychedelics, etc. I also think new models of relationship are necessary as the Tamera community in Portugal explores.
I would love to chat with you anytime about this! My email is Daniel.pinchbeck@gmail.com . My books were published by Random House, Penguin, etc, and I was on The Colbert Report, etc, in the past.
We chuckle at the heat pump graphic and the self-congratulation around it. If we stripped away government incentives and local/state government constraints around nat gas furnaces, we suspect that graphic would look very different and this wouldn't be news.
We also suspect that you may wish the video of you in Planet of the Humans congratulating Middlebury on its biomass plant would disappear right about now. How you ever thought biomass was a good idea is beyond us.
Finally, we hope you are paying attention to Germany's Energiewende. 6 days ago we're watching in real time as Germany, who pretends to be a "leader" on "climate change" is burning 70% lignite while Texas (whom Germans look down their noses at) is burning 15% coal for electricity generation. It's time your movement owns this, Bill. Here and in Europe.
" not that many people are really watching with admiration as Musk and his handpicked team of
“reporters” uncover the past “crimes” of his company, which mostly seem to involve hardworking
people trying to keep the ugliest sentiments in our society off their servers. "
So much to unpack here.
9 million people have viewed the Twitter Files Tweet published by Matt Taibbi entitled 'Twitter and Other Government Agencies" in which he reveals the close coordination between Twitter and the CIA. And that was just one of his threads and only one of the many journalists reporting. So to say that not many people are interested is just plain false. Perhaps what you meant to say was, "None of the establishment-liberal people I know are watching in admiration...," But there is a whole big world outside of your bubble of information, I know you find it scary and ugly, but try listening and understanding instead of immediate righteous condemnation, you might just learn something.
For instance you might learn that well-credentialed scientists were silenced for deviating from establishment Covid dogma, even as they quoted published science or government data. Or that the FBI was fully aware that Hunter Biden's laptop was not Russian disinformation, yet primed social media companies like Facebook and Twitter to censor it on that premise anyway before a presidential election. Do you believe the FBI should be attempting to interfere in the media to achieve certain political outcomes? Is that what you consider, "hardworking people trying to keep the ugliest sentiments in our society off their servers?"
You put reporters in scare quotes as if to imply that these are not journalists. Tell me, what makes a journalist? If a journalist reveals things that make you and your political faction uncomfortable, are they no longer journalists in your eyes? Pawns of the evil Musk? Is Julian Assange a journalist or a traitor to you?
I guess it comes down to this. Do you believe in free speech? Or do you believe that the government should be intimately involved in deciding who is allowed to speak and who isn't? Because if it's the later then you are an authoritarian who prefers censorship to free speech. An authoritarian with good intentions, but an authoritarian nonetheless. You believe "truth" should be handed down from trusted institutions and government agencies and questioning that "truth" is not allowed. And if you believe more in a Chinese style of government and internet then I think you should come out and say so and be honest about it.
This very platform you publish on, Substack, is explicitly free of the editorial control you so desire over all published facts and opinions. I find that rather ironic.
And is this how the scientific method teaches us to find truth? By silencing differing opinions? By only listening to sources who have similar political affiliations as ours? By sticking our noses in the air and implying that people who disseminate facts we don't like are not journalists? No, this is the path to ignorance. And furthermore silencing only breeds further distrust of institutions.
Do you think the climate denialists and anti-vaxxers just disappear when they are kicked off Twitter and Facebook? No, they find other platforms. And what better way to show others that you have won an argument when the other side choses to silence and censor rather than engage and discuss.
People are nasty on the internet, I get it. People say things you don't agree with which makes you uncomfortable, I also get that. But consider this. Elon Musk, for all his faults and childish opinions, has vastly accelerated the development and adoption of electric vehicles through his business Tesla, and thereby done a great service to the world by reducing it's dependance on liquid fossil fuels. That you would cheer the downfall of this company is rather telling. It shows that you are more interested in political correctness than actual climate progress. And that is disappointing.
Musk should be viewed as an opportunity for the climate movement. An opportunity to reach people who are not bound to establishment liberal politics. Because currently I see the climate movement as having a serious weakness, and that is being tied to one political ideology. Only liberals believe in climate change. But Musk breaks the mold, he knows climate change is real and is doing something about it; but he thumbs his nose at standard liberal orthodoxy. If we were truly interested in doing something about climate change we would listen and learn from him and try to understand him, his thinking and popularity, and use that knowledge to help affect climate action and understanding beyond the high-walled garden of liberal thought.
Consider this in parting. How does a climate denier feel when presented with evidence of climate change? As Plato's Allegory of the Cave shows, most likely fear and anger. You might condemn them as stupid and ignorant, yet are we so different? When presented with evidence which upsets our worldview, how do we feel? When the Twitter Files were revealed, did you scorn and ignore them out of fear and anger rather than review them in a dispassionate manner?
Humans, no matter their political affiliation or level of education, react emotionally to new information. Psychologists came up with a term for it, cognitive dissonance. Everyone has it, it's just part of being human. We are all inherently irrational beings prone to emotionally clinging to our own ideas no matter the evidence presented.
So my wish for the new year is that we can find understanding and tolerance for those who disagree with us. That we can learn from them, understand why they disagree, and make our arguments the stronger for it. That we can practice doing the very thing we ask of climate deniers, to listen to ideas with which we disagree in a dispassionate manner. As impossible as this seems, I feel that this is a better way to proceed for humanity, not censorship or control over discourse.
Hi Bill, I tried to send a subscription of this column but the system wouldn't recognize working emails.
On another note, I appreciated your recent New Yorker article and I was interested and am wondering about your position that we need to build out EVs with all the investment they take because we don't have time to ask people to change to public transportation or bicycles, etc. It seems that a national push to develop bus networks, trains and other public transit is at least as valuable to focus on and would impact and improve a tremendous amount of people as well as help create cultural changes in how we move ourselves. EVs too but cars do continue a system of living that is resource heavy. I too live in VT and can't see a great alternative to the car but we are small compared to the metropolis to the south.
Thanks Bill! I too feel things are starting to settle a tiny bit. I think our work will still be hard but there’s a feeling of a little more optimism.
I am so excited to read that “heat pumps outsold fossil fuel furnaces in the U.S. for the first time this year!“ per Leah Stokes.
And, thanks for the reference to Mary Annaïse Heglar‘s piece. This has stuck with me when she wrote: “But what if the thing that’s burning you out is the same thing burning the planet up? What if you can’t quit — quietly or otherwise — because to do so would be to give up on the future?” A sentiment I have felt.
Looking forward to 2023 and helping my local community to eat their carrots 🥕 in the IRA. Happy New Year!
Robin
Bill I think you need to stop obsessing about the negativity on Twitter. It's everywhere. Get used to it. It was on Twitter before Musk and is there now. If you think it's worse than pre-Musk I expect that is based on your perspective. Stuff that would not get through censors now does so now the nastiness comes from both sides. I could say suck it up but that would not be nice. This is not a "fighting" comment" and I don't even pay a subscription. Maybe one day I will. When I start to see your writing making more sense and being more open to other perspectives. But Musk has done a big service to the Twitter community and made it a more viable and relevant platform. Many people that had been banned for posting anti-narrative comments have been allowed back. I particularly noticed this banning trend related to the COVID situation but I'm sure it was common in climate-related stuff too. I'm talking about qualified scientists and journalists and doctors that posted comments disagreeing or contesting the narratives around vaccines, COVID treatments etc. Banned forever to Twitter heaven but resurrected by Musk. Certainly Musk needs to temper the angry beasts that wade too far into crudeness and into insults and obscenities and I expect that will happen. But Bill, you are getting pretty close to some of these things in your substack so I think you might be the pot calling the kettle black. And as for Greta Thunberg, her comeback to the attack on her was just a crude response to crudeness. I don't see why you were impressed by that. She should have just ignored the attacker. Your comments about that person make it seem that his approach to criticism is the way all criticism of perspectives such as your's or Greta's are made. I think that is just not so. But by being so much on the "fighting" side, you are inviting this type of response. As for you opinions on climate change, you have the right to them. Many disagree with your extreme perspective, including myself and don't see that "renewable" "solutions" you promote as viable. So maybe if you work hard to convince instead of fighting and attacking you will be more respected and taken more seriously. I don't see that as now being the case outside of the group of the "converted" that I might say you preach to now. I'm happy to know your perspective but even moreso if presented in a reasonable way. Your fighting words just don't do that and they often make you look foolish. You clearly have some very strong views on climate change and how it should be addressed and I like to hear them. I'm not the only one. But without all the nastiness of your "fighting" words. Please. Maybe one day I'll even pay for a subscription.
“What we actually need to happen is an ongoing and rapid evolution in the direction of clean energy, racial justice, and economic equality.”
Would we ever consider Fiduciary Reckoning as the driver of that change in direction?
I'm a long time progressive and activist/organizer, and the newsletter writer for our local 350 group, 350marin in California, Bill. So, of course, I've cheered your fantastic efforts over the years, helped organize and joined countless fossil fuel divestment actions, and I share your excitement that, with the IRA, the US finally at least started the massive job of shifting our energy sources to renewables. Yet, your comments supporting the experimental Covid vaccines specifically (not vaccines generally, which I, too, think are great tools), further confirm the worry I've been telling my 350marin colleagues and other friends about for months: The liberal/progressive left (and in particular, the Democrats as a party) with their uncritical support for the Big Pharma-led, publicly-financed, liability-free, proprietary vaccine and treatment-focused response are undermining public's trust in the left's ability to manage huge, centrally organized projects like the transition away from fossil fuels without corruption. This is already hurting our efforts on climate, and I believe that the damage to our climate cause will increase as the problems with the mRNA vaccines become more apparent as time goes on.
Stay with me on this. I know you're a very science-focused person, and I urge you to take another look recent data: the warning signals from population and study data are becoming clear, IMO, for any objective person to see who comprehensively reviews it from all sources as I have – not just the industry-captured CDC and FDA references.
I'll put a few links below to start with from two well-known and widely followed UK doctors, Dr. John Campbell and cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra. Until this year, they were strong supporters of the mRNA vaccination program but now are both calling for an immediate stop to use of those vaccines until their effects are further studied. Denmark no longer recommends vaccines for those under 50 unless immune compromised, vaccination of the young in Scandanavia has generally been avoided (unlike the US, which has pushed it to infants). Inquiries on potential nMRA dangers are underway in the EU and UK – and not just 'political', 'culture war' events, but science-based. I'll also include a link to the study re-evaluating the original Pharma-owned mRNA data (release of which was finally forced released by FOIA from the regulatory agencies and Big Pharma) and showing the incidence of serious adverse events appear to outweigh protection benefits. Authors include a senior editor of the BMJ (British Medical Journal) and a former associate director of NIH.
Having, like me, been an activist on climate for decades and fought Big Oil's corruption of both the public conversation and public policy over that time, we both should know better than to underestimate the power of Big Pharma to control and corruptly control public conversation of science and policy as well. I ask that you, as a leader of the climate movement, please dig deeper. I think you'll be surprised and disturbed by what you find.
Study: Serious Adverse Events of Special Interest Following mRNA Vaccination in Randomized Trials
“The excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest surpassed the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization relative to the placebo group in both Pfizer and Moderna trials”
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4125239
Cardiologist Dr. Malhotra describes how the death of his father and deeper research changed his view on the mRNA vaccines in the first part of this interview:
https://drdrew.com/2022/dr-aseem-malhotra-promoted-mrna-vaccines-for-covid-now-warns-of-heart-risks-w-dr-kelly-victory-ask-dr-drew/
Dr. John Campbell's statement on Rumble last week that data indicates the risk/benefit analysis has changed and he now believes we should pause the mass mRNA vaccination program:
https://rumble.com/v22ugd2-time-to-pause-covid-mass-vaccination.html
Hi Bill,
Have you written / pondered about how much actual sacrifice normal people will need to make to attain a sustainable climate? A lot of the climate movement seems to focus on the energy companies as the "enemy," but surely the energy companies are just following the global rise in demand for energy? Have you ever asked your followers how many would forego plane flights? Meat? New laptops and smart phones? Heating? Etc. I think this is one reason the climate movement is losing. Right Wingers by denying the climate crisis, propose that this kind of consumer lifestyle can continue but obviously it can't. So what comes after, actually?
I think we need a different mythology and ideal of heroism... but this also means we need a different vision of a future that is radically more amazing than what we have now. This for me is why 350 and XR don't fully catch on: They don't put forward a vision for what the amazing future is, if we reduce/re-use/de-grow... Is it just living with less, while the Earth's ecosystems buckle a bit slower?
I have tried to answer my own question in my books, including How Soon Is Now. I see the "consciousness movement" as part of the answer: People can explore the inner dimensions of consciousness using psychedelics, etc. I also think new models of relationship are necessary as the Tamera community in Portugal explores.
I would love to chat with you anytime about this! My email is Daniel.pinchbeck@gmail.com . My books were published by Random House, Penguin, etc, and I was on The Colbert Report, etc, in the past.
Kind regards,
Daniel
Thank you Bill ~
Hey Bill, Third Act website won't let me sign up for events, message reads "registration closed". Someone needs to fix that.
We chuckle at the heat pump graphic and the self-congratulation around it. If we stripped away government incentives and local/state government constraints around nat gas furnaces, we suspect that graphic would look very different and this wouldn't be news.
We also suspect that you may wish the video of you in Planet of the Humans congratulating Middlebury on its biomass plant would disappear right about now. How you ever thought biomass was a good idea is beyond us.
Finally, we hope you are paying attention to Germany's Energiewende. 6 days ago we're watching in real time as Germany, who pretends to be a "leader" on "climate change" is burning 70% lignite while Texas (whom Germans look down their noses at) is burning 15% coal for electricity generation. It's time your movement owns this, Bill. Here and in Europe.
" not that many people are really watching with admiration as Musk and his handpicked team of
“reporters” uncover the past “crimes” of his company, which mostly seem to involve hardworking
people trying to keep the ugliest sentiments in our society off their servers. "
So much to unpack here.
9 million people have viewed the Twitter Files Tweet published by Matt Taibbi entitled 'Twitter and Other Government Agencies" in which he reveals the close coordination between Twitter and the CIA. And that was just one of his threads and only one of the many journalists reporting. So to say that not many people are interested is just plain false. Perhaps what you meant to say was, "None of the establishment-liberal people I know are watching in admiration...," But there is a whole big world outside of your bubble of information, I know you find it scary and ugly, but try listening and understanding instead of immediate righteous condemnation, you might just learn something.
For instance you might learn that well-credentialed scientists were silenced for deviating from establishment Covid dogma, even as they quoted published science or government data. Or that the FBI was fully aware that Hunter Biden's laptop was not Russian disinformation, yet primed social media companies like Facebook and Twitter to censor it on that premise anyway before a presidential election. Do you believe the FBI should be attempting to interfere in the media to achieve certain political outcomes? Is that what you consider, "hardworking people trying to keep the ugliest sentiments in our society off their servers?"
You put reporters in scare quotes as if to imply that these are not journalists. Tell me, what makes a journalist? If a journalist reveals things that make you and your political faction uncomfortable, are they no longer journalists in your eyes? Pawns of the evil Musk? Is Julian Assange a journalist or a traitor to you?
I guess it comes down to this. Do you believe in free speech? Or do you believe that the government should be intimately involved in deciding who is allowed to speak and who isn't? Because if it's the later then you are an authoritarian who prefers censorship to free speech. An authoritarian with good intentions, but an authoritarian nonetheless. You believe "truth" should be handed down from trusted institutions and government agencies and questioning that "truth" is not allowed. And if you believe more in a Chinese style of government and internet then I think you should come out and say so and be honest about it.
This very platform you publish on, Substack, is explicitly free of the editorial control you so desire over all published facts and opinions. I find that rather ironic.
And is this how the scientific method teaches us to find truth? By silencing differing opinions? By only listening to sources who have similar political affiliations as ours? By sticking our noses in the air and implying that people who disseminate facts we don't like are not journalists? No, this is the path to ignorance. And furthermore silencing only breeds further distrust of institutions.
Do you think the climate denialists and anti-vaxxers just disappear when they are kicked off Twitter and Facebook? No, they find other platforms. And what better way to show others that you have won an argument when the other side choses to silence and censor rather than engage and discuss.
People are nasty on the internet, I get it. People say things you don't agree with which makes you uncomfortable, I also get that. But consider this. Elon Musk, for all his faults and childish opinions, has vastly accelerated the development and adoption of electric vehicles through his business Tesla, and thereby done a great service to the world by reducing it's dependance on liquid fossil fuels. That you would cheer the downfall of this company is rather telling. It shows that you are more interested in political correctness than actual climate progress. And that is disappointing.
Musk should be viewed as an opportunity for the climate movement. An opportunity to reach people who are not bound to establishment liberal politics. Because currently I see the climate movement as having a serious weakness, and that is being tied to one political ideology. Only liberals believe in climate change. But Musk breaks the mold, he knows climate change is real and is doing something about it; but he thumbs his nose at standard liberal orthodoxy. If we were truly interested in doing something about climate change we would listen and learn from him and try to understand him, his thinking and popularity, and use that knowledge to help affect climate action and understanding beyond the high-walled garden of liberal thought.
Consider this in parting. How does a climate denier feel when presented with evidence of climate change? As Plato's Allegory of the Cave shows, most likely fear and anger. You might condemn them as stupid and ignorant, yet are we so different? When presented with evidence which upsets our worldview, how do we feel? When the Twitter Files were revealed, did you scorn and ignore them out of fear and anger rather than review them in a dispassionate manner?
Humans, no matter their political affiliation or level of education, react emotionally to new information. Psychologists came up with a term for it, cognitive dissonance. Everyone has it, it's just part of being human. We are all inherently irrational beings prone to emotionally clinging to our own ideas no matter the evidence presented.
So my wish for the new year is that we can find understanding and tolerance for those who disagree with us. That we can learn from them, understand why they disagree, and make our arguments the stronger for it. That we can practice doing the very thing we ask of climate deniers, to listen to ideas with which we disagree in a dispassionate manner. As impossible as this seems, I feel that this is a better way to proceed for humanity, not censorship or control over discourse.
Happy new year to you and yours.
Hi Bill, I tried to send a subscription of this column but the system wouldn't recognize working emails.
On another note, I appreciated your recent New Yorker article and I was interested and am wondering about your position that we need to build out EVs with all the investment they take because we don't have time to ask people to change to public transportation or bicycles, etc. It seems that a national push to develop bus networks, trains and other public transit is at least as valuable to focus on and would impact and improve a tremendous amount of people as well as help create cultural changes in how we move ourselves. EVs too but cars do continue a system of living that is resource heavy. I too live in VT and can't see a great alternative to the car but we are small compared to the metropolis to the south.
Thank you for your lifetime of work.
Phillip