Skip to main content

Silly no-no's!





California passes bill cutting cars’ carbon dioxide



The California Legislature has handed automakers a major defeat by approving a controversial bill that would make the state the first in the nation to regulate vehicle emissions tied by many scientists to global warming.
Only, humans contribute just 3% of the carbon dioxide in the air. What percentage does California contribute?



Well, let's guesstimate based on the figures at this site, for which I cannot vouch, but since he seems to support this entire effort to reduce carbon dioxide production, he's good to go for this argument.



Unfortunately he uses pretty pictures instead of numbers, the better to show how horrible things are. Looks like the US of A cranks out around 1,350,000,000 metric tons annually, whilst California puffs out 9,500,000. Hmm, get out my calculator here.... So, California produces 0.7% of the US total. The US produces 25% of the world total for carbon dioxide produced by human activity. (See that 3% link above.) That means California contributes 0.175% of the US total, and that's 0.00525% of the total amount of carbon dioxide produced annually (from all sources, man-made and otherwise).



i.e. - Eliminating 100% of California's human activity based carbon dioxide production means precisely dick to the total worldwide production.



This is the victory of symbolism over substance. What are the possible results? Oh, the easiest way for auto manufacturers to meet these requirements is to restrict the types of vehicles they sell in California. There is no emissions control device that can make this happen, so you 1) alter the power source or 2) reduce the per vehicle production. Any of the former are still untenable and the latter is easy; smaller cars, smaller engines, less production.



Which, tada, is the real goal.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

I (Briefly) Try a Mac

 I Bought a Mac. My first computer was an Atari 800, fully loaded with 48k of RAM. And I mean the original, beige model, not its low-slung, fancy successor. My friend went for an Apple IIe, which cost a relative fortune. Eventually, I’d step up to an Atari 1040ST, while he’d get a IIgs. And even more eventually, we both ended up with IBM PC compatibles. MSDOS was my friend, Unix an ally. It was with great reluctance that I transition from a command-line interface (CLI) to a Graphic User Interface (GUI), always on a PC platform and never a Mac. I never bought into the hype and never experienced all the horrid things that allegedly befell anyone using a PC. For me, they just worked. Yet here I am, these many decades later, typing this on a brand-new MacBook Air M4. How things change... Initially, there was little regret but a mounting list of frustrations. Adjusting to the keyboard isn’t too hard, it’s just a matter of experimentation. Learning how to scale the display wasn’t awful, ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Dune Part 2 (2024)

I have come not to praise Dune but to bury it. I am in a distinct minority. So be it. To explain why, there will be some minor spoilers ahead; sorry. The short version is #NotMyDune. Summary: Picking up where Dune Part 1 left off, we find the young Paul Atreides (Timothée Chalamet) hanging out with the Fremen. Plots to overthrow rival houses and empires ensue. Go here to see what I thought about Dune Part 1 (2021) . Overall, I found it to be technically brilliant, but lacking a human heart, an exercise in frenetic slow motion. D2 is more of the same, though with far more action. Acting-wise, everyone is doing a fine, more than adequate job. Absolutely no one or nothing stands out. The way the characters are written (adapted, actually), their back and forths and interactions, are all weak and unengaging. I generally hate when they speak. I've read the novel a ridiculous number of times, and these films are prompting me to read it again. I understand that trying to translate the n...
1 comment
Read more

Rogan

The entire Joe Rogan controversy is an example of the kids being left in charge and the adults refusing to teach them any better. I’m not a regular consumer of podcasts. There are a couple I listen to from time to time, but nothing on a regular basis. While I’ve caught a few minutes of the Joe Rogan Experience on YouTube, I’ve never listened to his podcast. One of the primary reasons for that is that you have to subscribe to Spotify to do so, and I prefer Qobuz, Tidal, or even Amazon Music. Rogan is behind Spotify’s paywall and that’s that. But the nature of the fight is about more than who does or does not listen to Rogan. This fight goes to the very nature of the First Amendment and the fundamental concept of the United States. And yes, I understand that cuts both ways. What’s his name and Joni Mitchell are free to yank their creations from Spotify, no ifs, ands, or buts. I’m not denying their right, I’m questioning their reasons. Rogan talks to people. He does so largely unfiltered....
Post a Comment
Read more