"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." — George Santayana

More than 65 years ago, physicist Edward Teller warned the industry about the climate harms of burning liquid fuel (Link). Yet, just a few years later, they ramped up lobbying against electric vehicles, claiming "clean-burning" internal combustion engines could match EVs' air pollution benefits (Link).

They conveniently ignored the carbon dioxide emissions threatening our life-sustaining climate.

We must remember the science that preceded us: Joseph Fourier (1824): Described the atmospheric greenhouse effect. Svante Arrhenius (1896): Quantified the CO₂-warming relationship. Charles Keeling (1958): Started continuous CO₂ measurements at Mauna Loa. Manabe & Wetherald (1967): Built the first climate model. Charney Report (1979): Established the 1.5–4.5°C warming range. James Hansen (1981): Provided the first peer-reviewed assessment of observed warming. IPCC (1991) & NCA5 (2023): Global and national consensus on climate risks.

And we must remember the denial.

The oil industry's public denial campaign began in 1980—decades before they publicly acknowledged the science (Link).

Today, this denial is exacerbated by the EPA's 2026 elimination of the Endangerment Finding (Link), capping required MPG at 32 instead of the projected 50+ (Link).

Will we choose "what is," or "what can be"?

Do we ignore the micro-economic hits (e.g., rising insurance costs) and macro-economic catastrophes and human suffering (e.g., water shortages, mass migration)? Or do we embrace the GHG-reducing solutions?

The technology is here. The savings are real.

My 5-passenger EV, with ample cargo space, is comfortable, fun to drive, and delivers 4.3 miles per kWh. Driving 100 miles in comfort currently costs just $3.05.

The science is clear. The economics are undeniable. The question is: Are we ready to act?