Dems, climate folk, etc. have to up their rhetoric. Every "natural" disaster has to be loudly called out: This wildfire (heat wave, drought, flash flood, storm, etc.) brought to you by the fossil fuel industry and their paid lackeys, republican elected officials.
Yes, though I think at a certain point the "You're being f'd by FFs" message risks cognitive dissonance in the audience. So in addition they need to be pointed to the solutions. The following link is a one minute add from an offshore wind company for the Euro market, but it fits my concept of what a lot of renewable messaging should look like; "See the big honking already-built project which is greatly reducing GHGs while f'ing fossil fuels. Oh and NOT f'ing up the environment."
I think one really useful thing philanthropists could do is to fund local radio stations that tell the truth. Most local radio in the USA has been deliberately bought up by right wing organisations that push right wing views and hate. If these new decent stations also promoted community eg events sports arts and music that could help to rebuild community and connection.
People in the USA drive a lot and listen to a lot of car radio.
I agree entirely with the observation that the right has been patient in building networks and careers and worldviews. And the liberals are way too timid and unwilling to fight for decency and unwilling to ally with the left or working class.
My husband and I drove from Vermont to Utah. He listened to whatever radio was on. Just like Alice wrote, lots of right wing misinformation, Christian stations many of which did not sound very Christian, and a few stations with actual news. The Trump voters are not all hateful, vindictive ,irrational, mean people. They are misinformed but my limited experience is that they are as likely to be polite and helpful as Democrats, and much more reasonable and tolerant than those on the far left.
To address a point raised by Our Host. The center and left have a potent and well-organized intellectual infrastructure. It is called "universities" and "professions." Once upon a time, the right tried to counter this infrastructure, with things like the American Enterprise Institute. But then they discovered that facts have a well-known liberal bias, and shifted to full-time centrally organized propaganda instead. It worked! Center and left propaganda is disorganized and generally incompetent.
The problem with David's rant about the left is his stated assumption that the left has all the answers. It doesn't! It has significant blind spots. The Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity, etc are constantly fighting new mineral development, sustainable harvesting of trees that can reduce the severity of wildfires, protecting the forests ability to capture and store carbon. The wood can be used to replace concrete, aluminum and steel. Biochar from the slash and nano-cellulose to make green concrete and many other renewable, sustainable products. It is used for cardboard and paper packaging instead of plastic. The IPCC has repeatedly stated in their reports that the role of sustainable forest management and wood products are essential to solving GHG emissions. Protecting biological diversity while sustainably harvesting and using wood are completely compatible. The loudest voices on the left refuse to accept this path. David when are you going to have this conversation? Check out: https://theforestsdialogue.org/ and the International Mass Timber Conference: https://masstimberconference.com/ last year's conference had over 3,000 people from 40 different countries. Get off your high horse Dave and challenge your own biases.
I don't like this guy his org., or various similar groups and politicians. Clean Air Task Force. Eek. "Clean, firm;" to me that's expensive, inflexible baseload.
Of course, we can't ever "Say the names," of wind or solar power. Did I hear "fusion" instead. WTF?!
If the climate/environ/lib/prog/Dems or whatever actually fought back with propaganda for INFLUENCE, particularly in the rural areas, when it became clear five years ago or so that FF-right was mounting anti-wind campaigns, maybe wind and solar wouldn't be basically banned on 20% of the USA. Now coming after storage.
He also pointedly rebuts one of the premises of Giving Green, to pick future "hard to abate" emissions sectors. He notes that the "easy to abate" and "inevitable" sectors are as large or larger, and really are NOT EASY to abate and need continued social-political and financial support to maintain momentum even if most of the tech is developed.
While some say the multi-billion dollar renewable industry should be funding its own propaganda, it's really not as profitable as O&G and does not have the benefit of 100 years of accumulated capital etc., etc. The following link is a one minute add from an offshore wind company for the Euro market, but it fits my concept of what a lot of renewable messaging should look like; "See the big honking already-built project which is greatly reducing GHGs while f'ing fossil fuels. Oh and NOT f'ing up the environment."
Finally, I know TLDR, but as far as the timidity or waffling, (instead of fighting to win) David alludes to in Dem/lib/prog circles. I think so many politically active folks there have internalized "centering justice/equity" to the point that it limits actions because so many actions do result in some losers somewhere at some point. So many overlapping criteria must be met that the final intersection of solution sets is limited, often expensive... For climate/enviro activists, add aversion to extraction, land-habitat-farm use, supposedly toxic components... I know I'm missing some.
Two significant differences between the Left Progressive Advocate (LPA) funders & Right Wing Authoritarian (RWA) funders:
1) The RWA doesn't care if some of the money is grifted/stolen/misallocated, etc... they accept this as part of doing business.
2) RWA assholes don't fight fair, they have a zero-sum game mentality
Until the LPA gets more comfortable with easing funding restrictions and adopting a (near) zero-sum game mentality, then they will lose more than they win.
Dems, climate folk, etc. have to up their rhetoric. Every "natural" disaster has to be loudly called out: This wildfire (heat wave, drought, flash flood, storm, etc.) brought to you by the fossil fuel industry and their paid lackeys, republican elected officials.
Yes, though I think at a certain point the "You're being f'd by FFs" message risks cognitive dissonance in the audience. So in addition they need to be pointed to the solutions. The following link is a one minute add from an offshore wind company for the Euro market, but it fits my concept of what a lot of renewable messaging should look like; "See the big honking already-built project which is greatly reducing GHGs while f'ing fossil fuels. Oh and NOT f'ing up the environment."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uEpdIKzspA (Featuring Samuel Jackson not pulling any punches.)
I think one really useful thing philanthropists could do is to fund local radio stations that tell the truth. Most local radio in the USA has been deliberately bought up by right wing organisations that push right wing views and hate. If these new decent stations also promoted community eg events sports arts and music that could help to rebuild community and connection.
People in the USA drive a lot and listen to a lot of car radio.
I agree entirely with the observation that the right has been patient in building networks and careers and worldviews. And the liberals are way too timid and unwilling to fight for decency and unwilling to ally with the left or working class.
Good interview thanks to both of you. .
My husband and I drove from Vermont to Utah. He listened to whatever radio was on. Just like Alice wrote, lots of right wing misinformation, Christian stations many of which did not sound very Christian, and a few stations with actual news. The Trump voters are not all hateful, vindictive ,irrational, mean people. They are misinformed but my limited experience is that they are as likely to be polite and helpful as Democrats, and much more reasonable and tolerant than those on the far left.
To address a point raised by Our Host. The center and left have a potent and well-organized intellectual infrastructure. It is called "universities" and "professions." Once upon a time, the right tried to counter this infrastructure, with things like the American Enterprise Institute. But then they discovered that facts have a well-known liberal bias, and shifted to full-time centrally organized propaganda instead. It worked! Center and left propaganda is disorganized and generally incompetent.
We don't know how to reach the Fox news audiance.
The problem with David's rant about the left is his stated assumption that the left has all the answers. It doesn't! It has significant blind spots. The Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity, etc are constantly fighting new mineral development, sustainable harvesting of trees that can reduce the severity of wildfires, protecting the forests ability to capture and store carbon. The wood can be used to replace concrete, aluminum and steel. Biochar from the slash and nano-cellulose to make green concrete and many other renewable, sustainable products. It is used for cardboard and paper packaging instead of plastic. The IPCC has repeatedly stated in their reports that the role of sustainable forest management and wood products are essential to solving GHG emissions. Protecting biological diversity while sustainably harvesting and using wood are completely compatible. The loudest voices on the left refuse to accept this path. David when are you going to have this conversation? Check out: https://theforestsdialogue.org/ and the International Mass Timber Conference: https://masstimberconference.com/ last year's conference had over 3,000 people from 40 different countries. Get off your high horse Dave and challenge your own biases.
I "like" David's skewering. Good job.
I don't like this guy his org., or various similar groups and politicians. Clean Air Task Force. Eek. "Clean, firm;" to me that's expensive, inflexible baseload.
Of course, we can't ever "Say the names," of wind or solar power. Did I hear "fusion" instead. WTF?!
Enough with the "pre-obey" and self-censorship in the name of "bi-partisanship." Or fear of the "Eye of Sauron." https://electrek.co/2025/08/25/scientist-exposes-anti-wind-groups-as-oil-funded-now-they-want-to-silence-him/
If the climate/environ/lib/prog/Dems or whatever actually fought back with propaganda for INFLUENCE, particularly in the rural areas, when it became clear five years ago or so that FF-right was mounting anti-wind campaigns, maybe wind and solar wouldn't be basically banned on 20% of the USA. Now coming after storage.
Fortunately, after listening to this, I tuned into the Aussie RenewEconomy Switched On podcast featuring Saul Griffith, drinking Negronis and ranting, inc. discussion of how Electrify America was screwed by the Oil-garchs & Billionaires Bailout Bill, with a summary, inc pod link, at https://reneweconomy.com.au/saul-griffiths-call-to-arms-he-wants-a-consumer-army-to-lead-fight-for-cheapest-energy-system/
He also pointedly rebuts one of the premises of Giving Green, to pick future "hard to abate" emissions sectors. He notes that the "easy to abate" and "inevitable" sectors are as large or larger, and really are NOT EASY to abate and need continued social-political and financial support to maintain momentum even if most of the tech is developed.
While some say the multi-billion dollar renewable industry should be funding its own propaganda, it's really not as profitable as O&G and does not have the benefit of 100 years of accumulated capital etc., etc. The following link is a one minute add from an offshore wind company for the Euro market, but it fits my concept of what a lot of renewable messaging should look like; "See the big honking already-built project which is greatly reducing GHGs while f'ing fossil fuels. Oh and NOT f'ing up the environment."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uEpdIKzspA (Featuring Samuel Jackson not pulling any punches.)
Finally, I know TLDR, but as far as the timidity or waffling, (instead of fighting to win) David alludes to in Dem/lib/prog circles. I think so many politically active folks there have internalized "centering justice/equity" to the point that it limits actions because so many actions do result in some losers somewhere at some point. So many overlapping criteria must be met that the final intersection of solution sets is limited, often expensive... For climate/enviro activists, add aversion to extraction, land-habitat-farm use, supposedly toxic components... I know I'm missing some.
Do they fund a black ops wing ala "Ministry for the Future"?
Please spare the flights to Vegas for RE+! 😄
I agree 100% the best thing for climate policy would have been to elect anyone else but trump. Let's get the word out to longtime Republicans that it is past time to call out lying elected Republicans on this topic. Share this with conservatives you know - Betrayed by lying elected Republicans - A reckoning with climate reality - https://medium.com/@rlhowejr/betrayed-by-lying-elected-republicans-a-reckoning-with-climate-reality-e029ba5af1f1
Two significant differences between the Left Progressive Advocate (LPA) funders & Right Wing Authoritarian (RWA) funders:
1) The RWA doesn't care if some of the money is grifted/stolen/misallocated, etc... they accept this as part of doing business.
2) RWA assholes don't fight fair, they have a zero-sum game mentality
Until the LPA gets more comfortable with easing funding restrictions and adopting a (near) zero-sum game mentality, then they will lose more than they win.