To be nagged or not to be nagged, that is the question (Sorry, I guess like Hamlet, er... Shakespeare, I implied, but really didn’t ask a question). Let me rephrase: To nag or not to nag. Or maybe: Do you nag when you want something? Do you dislike others nagging you? Does nagging work?
Anyway, I came across Jesus’ parable about nagging, and I thought I might apply it to today’s political scene, particularly to politics centered on climate change. The parable relates the story of a judge who had no fear of either God or people, but who was subject to nagging by a woman who wanted him to rule in her favor. To stop the nagging, he ruled for her position. The lesson in Luke 1: 1-8? Persistently ask God for favors because He’ll tire of hearing the pleas and grant your wish just to stop all the nagging—sorry, prayers. And in politics, the rule is the same: Just keep nagging the politicians if you want them to act in your favor. They’ll wear down eventually to grant your wishes.
Thus, we have an entire state (California) banning the sale of gasoline-powered cars in 2035. And why? Nagging. And like the nagging of little kids who just won’t shut up till they get what they want, so the nagging of climate activists have worn down otherwise rather well educated people into a position that millions of citizens don’t want to take because they have already experienced the brownouts, blackouts, and higher costs that come with banning fossil fuels. So, banning gasoline-powered cars might seem like a good idea at the moment, and it certainly will stop some of the nagging, but like the proposal to plant two billion trees to absorb carbon, banning gasoline cars will do little to preserve some climate“ideal” (whatever that is). So, is there an ideal climate?
The folly of the idea of an ideal climate reminds me of a scene in the comedy series Community in which John Goodman, who is in charge of the students studying HVAC at a community college, introduces Troy Barnes to the room that is the basis for the term “room temperature,” a room so comfortable that Troy says, “I can’t tell where the air ends and my skin begins.” * It’s the perfect climate controlled room. Will Californians achieve the ideal climate in a state that varies from desert to redwood rain forest to snow-covered peaks? Will all of California soon become San Diego or Napa Valley? Will the state finally see an end to those periodic droughts that have pestered people for thousands of years?
Will those new electric cars that will replace the gasoline-powered cars have a noticeable effect on climate? Californians drive 14 million cars at present. State car sales amount to about 1.8 million vehicles yearly. So, if people decide to comply with the California law and buy 1.8 million new electric cars each year, then in just 7.77 years or by 2043 approximately, all Californians will be driving electric vehicles--if they choose to buy one, that is. Many Californians might opt to keep their old vehicles as long as they run and they can afford gas that might rise well above 2022's $7.00 per gallon.
But let's say Californians are gung-ho for electric vehicles. Eventually, California will have to deal with all the lithium, cobalt, rare earths, nickel, copper, and manganese that go into making electric car batteries--assuming that we can get the rare earths from places like China, Myanmar, Australia, Thailand, Madagascar, India, Brazil, Vietnam, and, of course, from our good friends in Russia. And for the country as a whole, by one estimate the copper demand to produce electric vehicles will exceed the entire annual production of copper in China, or about 1.7 million tons—that’s a lot of pennies--with California one of the leading consumers of the metal.
So, again, what’s the effect on climate? Well, a typical gasoline car emits about 4.7 tons of carbon dioxide per year. (Naturally, the “typical” might not be the actual) The world’s anthropogenic carbon emissions are about 36 billion tons per year. California’s 14 million gasoline-powered cars will emit 65.8 million tons of carbon per year. That’s 0.00182% of the global carbon emissions. Wow! Imagine the effect, and it will only cost the price of an electric car for every Californian now driving a vehicle plus the environmental damage from mining the rare earths, copper, and other metals needed for the batteries, and the environmental cost of disposing of those metals, plus the higher cost of electricity, and, of course, the drain on the electric grid.
By the way, like California’s electric car mandate, the proposed climate solution involving the planting of two billion trees will probably do very little to change a worldwide trend because there are already an estimated three trillion trees. Do the math. An acre of mature forest might have as many as 170 trees. So, that adds up to a little short of 12 million acres of trees. Now that sounds like a lot, and it is, considering that Pennsylvania (Penn’s Woods) has 17 million acres of trees. So, two billion trees means planting trees on the equivalent of 70% of the area of Pennsylvania’s forests. And to achieve—what? Well, that’s adding 0.0006% more trees to the planet’s arboretum. And those trees will eventually die and cycle their carbon, possibly faster than expected because of California’s fires.
Won’t the trees sequester the carbon? For a while, certainly. An acre of mature temperate forest can absorb about 2.5 tons of carbon per year. So, 12 million acres of trees might be able to absorb about 30 million tons of carbon. The world’s output of anthropogenic carbon emissions equates to about 36 billion tons annually. Thus, the two billion newly planted trees, reaching maturity, should be able to absorb about 0.0008 % of the world’s annual carbon emissions—until they release that carbon upon their conflagration or their natural deaths and subsequent rotting.
And all this just from nagging, nagging, nagging about climate.
*YouTube: The room temperature room.
Anyway, I came across Jesus’ parable about nagging, and I thought I might apply it to today’s political scene, particularly to politics centered on climate change. The parable relates the story of a judge who had no fear of either God or people, but who was subject to nagging by a woman who wanted him to rule in her favor. To stop the nagging, he ruled for her position. The lesson in Luke 1: 1-8? Persistently ask God for favors because He’ll tire of hearing the pleas and grant your wish just to stop all the nagging—sorry, prayers. And in politics, the rule is the same: Just keep nagging the politicians if you want them to act in your favor. They’ll wear down eventually to grant your wishes.
Thus, we have an entire state (California) banning the sale of gasoline-powered cars in 2035. And why? Nagging. And like the nagging of little kids who just won’t shut up till they get what they want, so the nagging of climate activists have worn down otherwise rather well educated people into a position that millions of citizens don’t want to take because they have already experienced the brownouts, blackouts, and higher costs that come with banning fossil fuels. So, banning gasoline-powered cars might seem like a good idea at the moment, and it certainly will stop some of the nagging, but like the proposal to plant two billion trees to absorb carbon, banning gasoline cars will do little to preserve some climate“ideal” (whatever that is). So, is there an ideal climate?
The folly of the idea of an ideal climate reminds me of a scene in the comedy series Community in which John Goodman, who is in charge of the students studying HVAC at a community college, introduces Troy Barnes to the room that is the basis for the term “room temperature,” a room so comfortable that Troy says, “I can’t tell where the air ends and my skin begins.” * It’s the perfect climate controlled room. Will Californians achieve the ideal climate in a state that varies from desert to redwood rain forest to snow-covered peaks? Will all of California soon become San Diego or Napa Valley? Will the state finally see an end to those periodic droughts that have pestered people for thousands of years?
Will those new electric cars that will replace the gasoline-powered cars have a noticeable effect on climate? Californians drive 14 million cars at present. State car sales amount to about 1.8 million vehicles yearly. So, if people decide to comply with the California law and buy 1.8 million new electric cars each year, then in just 7.77 years or by 2043 approximately, all Californians will be driving electric vehicles--if they choose to buy one, that is. Many Californians might opt to keep their old vehicles as long as they run and they can afford gas that might rise well above 2022's $7.00 per gallon.
But let's say Californians are gung-ho for electric vehicles. Eventually, California will have to deal with all the lithium, cobalt, rare earths, nickel, copper, and manganese that go into making electric car batteries--assuming that we can get the rare earths from places like China, Myanmar, Australia, Thailand, Madagascar, India, Brazil, Vietnam, and, of course, from our good friends in Russia. And for the country as a whole, by one estimate the copper demand to produce electric vehicles will exceed the entire annual production of copper in China, or about 1.7 million tons—that’s a lot of pennies--with California one of the leading consumers of the metal.
So, again, what’s the effect on climate? Well, a typical gasoline car emits about 4.7 tons of carbon dioxide per year. (Naturally, the “typical” might not be the actual) The world’s anthropogenic carbon emissions are about 36 billion tons per year. California’s 14 million gasoline-powered cars will emit 65.8 million tons of carbon per year. That’s 0.00182% of the global carbon emissions. Wow! Imagine the effect, and it will only cost the price of an electric car for every Californian now driving a vehicle plus the environmental damage from mining the rare earths, copper, and other metals needed for the batteries, and the environmental cost of disposing of those metals, plus the higher cost of electricity, and, of course, the drain on the electric grid.
By the way, like California’s electric car mandate, the proposed climate solution involving the planting of two billion trees will probably do very little to change a worldwide trend because there are already an estimated three trillion trees. Do the math. An acre of mature forest might have as many as 170 trees. So, that adds up to a little short of 12 million acres of trees. Now that sounds like a lot, and it is, considering that Pennsylvania (Penn’s Woods) has 17 million acres of trees. So, two billion trees means planting trees on the equivalent of 70% of the area of Pennsylvania’s forests. And to achieve—what? Well, that’s adding 0.0006% more trees to the planet’s arboretum. And those trees will eventually die and cycle their carbon, possibly faster than expected because of California’s fires.
Won’t the trees sequester the carbon? For a while, certainly. An acre of mature temperate forest can absorb about 2.5 tons of carbon per year. So, 12 million acres of trees might be able to absorb about 30 million tons of carbon. The world’s output of anthropogenic carbon emissions equates to about 36 billion tons annually. Thus, the two billion newly planted trees, reaching maturity, should be able to absorb about 0.0008 % of the world’s annual carbon emissions—until they release that carbon upon their conflagration or their natural deaths and subsequent rotting.
And all this just from nagging, nagging, nagging about climate.
*YouTube: The room temperature room.
RSS Feed