Today, while walking my dog, I saw a sign posted in a yard which read: “Be a good neighbor. Pick up after your dog.” I liked the way the sign’s message was formulated. Most notable was its approach. Rather than command or simply plead, the sign first addressed a person’s conscience and would have them think, “Am I a good neighbor?” Hopefully the answer would be, “Yes, I am,” and consequently, they would clean up after their dog.
This had me thinking as I continued walking with my pooch: Would this approach work in other area of life? For example, if there were a bumper sticker that read, “Be a good driver. Follow at a safe distance.” Or how about, “Be a good person. Let the innocent live.” The latter could have many applications, so many in fact, the question would be where to post all the signs.
The sign I saw did appear to be effective. The yard where it was posted was free of any evidence Fido had been there. If only the rest of the world’s problems could be solved so easily.
***
How many of you have ever heard of Doug LaMalfa? Doug is a congressman from Northern California, or more specifically, California’s first congressional district. Recently, I heard him put this question to a panel of experts at a House Transportation Committee hearing: “What percentage of our atmosphere is CO2 … carbon dioxide?”
The panel was made up of four individuals whose names I cannot report because their nameplates were not clearly visible in the video I watched. What I can report, however, is what the experts gave as answers. Two answered 5%, one answered 7% and the last upped the ante to 8%. The one woman on the panel gave 5% as her answer and added that 49% of the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere is from transportation (I take that to mean the CO2 emitted per the activities of humankind).
After Mr. LaMalfa accepted the answers from the panelists, he then went on to reveal what the actual number is. The true number is .04%.
Recommended for you
He then went on to admit it has gone up .01% in the last few decades. If one were to combine this last point with the one emphasized by the woman on the panel, it would mean that transportation is responsible for a .0049% increase in the atmosphere’s CO2. For this, it is being proposed we switch all vehicles — cars, trucks, buses, tractor-trailer rigs, farm equipment and trains — over to battery powered electric.
To further emphasize the point Mr. LaMalfa was making, let us imagine what .04% represents by using a football field as our analogy. If the atmosphere was equal to the length of a football field or 100 yards, then CO2 would get us less than 1 1/2 inches down the field and the increase caused by transportation vehicles over the last few decades would move us down the field 11/64 of an inch. It would seem the great strides we think we are making by going all electric are not all that great.
By the way, on a related topic, how many of you saw the video that captured the fire of three Ford F-150 pickups in a Dearborn, Michigan, parking lot? All three were battery powered electric vehicles. One of the vehicles spontaneously combusted, causing the other two parked next to it to also catch fire. As the three burned, they belched a huge amount of black smoke into the air. Included in that smoke were toxins from the batteries, including hydrogen and phosphoryl florides.
Fires like this are a real problem for fire departments. Often they reach what is known as “thermal runaway,” at which point they are allowed to burn until they extinguish themselves by running out of fuel, most notably the vehicle’s battery but also its upholstery, all the plastics, rubber components and paint.
With a normal gasoline or diesel powered vehicle, if it catches fire, the fire department can usually put it out using the tank of water carried by a typical fire engine. However, so much water is needed to put out an EV fire, either our highways would need to be lined with fire hydrants or, alternatively, every EV fire would require multiple fire engines to report to the scene. Neither is a practical solution, which is why the vehicles are left to burn themselves out. At best, the fire department may attempt to drag the EV away from other combustible materials as safely as possible.
I’ll conclude with this: Let us all be good thinkers. Let us consider all factors before jumping off the cliff and switching to all electric vehicles by 2035.
A former member of the San Carlos City Council and mayor, Matt Grocott has been involved in political policy on the Peninsula for 17 years. He can be reached by email at mattgrocott@comcast.net.
Well Matt, I think leaving the numbers game to the certified climate experts would be a better path for you. Stick to your idea of putting inspirational signs around town. I'll actually read them.
Mike - sorry to have Matt burst your bubble. There are no certified climate experts, just group thinkers who truly dislike having their narrative torpedoed. Apparently, these so-called experts crowd the halls of our Congress as well.
Another enjoyable read, Mr. Grocott… Thanks for the CO2 info but rabid greenies will likely ignore the data, just as they ignore where the majority of their magic “green” electricity is sourced from – fossil-fuel generation plants. I agree with your conclusion for all of us to be good thinkers but when electrification and “for the planet” arguments are based on emotion, thinking only gets in their way. I imagine their thought process only consists of, “As long as we can virtue signal that CO2 isn’t emitted from our backyard, we don’t care about other backyards.”
Just for the sake of another viewpoint, it seems to me that the real question about CO2 is not how much is in the atmosphere but how much is needed to reach the tipping point of being unhealthy for living things. Here is another observation. The air we breathe is about 21% oxygen. Water is about 33% oxygen (H2O). If I hold you under water would that be too much oxygen for you or would you be able to breathe 50% better?
Taffy, my friend, it appears you’re confusing O2 with O, a common mistake. And water is 33% oxygen? Well, I guess if you only consider the atoms… Thanks for the laugh.
One of the most ignorant opinion columns I’ve read in awhile. Felt like a paid Koch Brothers propaganda piece. https://www.politifact.com/article/2023/apr/21/is-only-004-of-the-atmosphere-but-a-viral-video-ig/
Mr. Regan, you’re hilarious… citing Politifact as a source. Politifact goes through torturous mental and word gymnastics to assert their version of “facts” (which are easily refuted/debunked). Your cited article is no exception, in addition to omitting an important value – an upper limit for CO2 levels. A 50% increase from 0.028% to 0.042% in 100 years sounds impressive, until you realize the increase is over 100 years and the current level is nowhere close to causing issues for humans… So maybe we’ll need to worry in 300, or 1000 more years… depending upon what you choose as an upper limit (some say 1.5%, others say 4%). But history is not kind... you can easily do a search for “climate change doomsday predictions” and pick a link, but if you don’t want to do any homework, here’s one: https://www.netzerowatch.com/earth-day-at-52-none-of-the-eco-doomsday-predictions-have-come-true/
And the laughs keep coming… Mr. Regan, are you referring to those who erroneously predicted a climate doomsday based on your “settled science”? What are they, 0 for, well, everything? Are you referring to the settled science that developed and undeveloped countries ignore as they increase their use of fossil-fuels to provide their electricity? Maybe you’re referring to the settled science that COP climate conference attendees ignore when they take over 400 carbon-spewing planes to attend the conference? If anything, your “settled science” shows climate change is controlled by Mother Nature, or God, but not by man. Recommend folks sticking to facts and actions rather than words.
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(12) comments
Well Matt, I think leaving the numbers game to the certified climate experts would be a better path for you. Stick to your idea of putting inspirational signs around town. I'll actually read them.
Mike - sorry to have Matt burst your bubble. There are no certified climate experts, just group thinkers who truly dislike having their narrative torpedoed. Apparently, these so-called experts crowd the halls of our Congress as well.
Another enjoyable read, Mr. Grocott… Thanks for the CO2 info but rabid greenies will likely ignore the data, just as they ignore where the majority of their magic “green” electricity is sourced from – fossil-fuel generation plants. I agree with your conclusion for all of us to be good thinkers but when electrification and “for the planet” arguments are based on emotion, thinking only gets in their way. I imagine their thought process only consists of, “As long as we can virtue signal that CO2 isn’t emitted from our backyard, we don’t care about other backyards.”
Mr. Grocott,
Just for the sake of another viewpoint, it seems to me that the real question about CO2 is not how much is in the atmosphere but how much is needed to reach the tipping point of being unhealthy for living things. Here is another observation. The air we breathe is about 21% oxygen. Water is about 33% oxygen (H2O). If I hold you under water would that be too much oxygen for you or would you be able to breathe 50% better?
Taffy, my friend, it appears you’re confusing O2 with O, a common mistake. And water is 33% oxygen? Well, I guess if you only consider the atoms… Thanks for the laugh.
Science has never been Taffy's strong attribute.
One of the most ignorant opinion columns I’ve read in awhile. Felt like a paid Koch Brothers propaganda piece. https://www.politifact.com/article/2023/apr/21/is-only-004-of-the-atmosphere-but-a-viral-video-ig/
Mr. Regan, you’re hilarious… citing Politifact as a source. Politifact goes through torturous mental and word gymnastics to assert their version of “facts” (which are easily refuted/debunked). Your cited article is no exception, in addition to omitting an important value – an upper limit for CO2 levels. A 50% increase from 0.028% to 0.042% in 100 years sounds impressive, until you realize the increase is over 100 years and the current level is nowhere close to causing issues for humans… So maybe we’ll need to worry in 300, or 1000 more years… depending upon what you choose as an upper limit (some say 1.5%, others say 4%). But history is not kind... you can easily do a search for “climate change doomsday predictions” and pick a link, but if you don’t want to do any homework, here’s one: https://www.netzerowatch.com/earth-day-at-52-none-of-the-eco-doomsday-predictions-have-come-true/
Climate change is settled science amongst scientists worldwide. Recommend opening a window.
And the laughs keep coming… Mr. Regan, are you referring to those who erroneously predicted a climate doomsday based on your “settled science”? What are they, 0 for, well, everything? Are you referring to the settled science that developed and undeveloped countries ignore as they increase their use of fossil-fuels to provide their electricity? Maybe you’re referring to the settled science that COP climate conference attendees ignore when they take over 400 carbon-spewing planes to attend the conference? If anything, your “settled science” shows climate change is controlled by Mother Nature, or God, but not by man. Recommend folks sticking to facts and actions rather than words.
Be a good man. Let women decide for themselves. Absent yourself from the discussion.
go home to half moon bay and leave us alone here in san mateo. not your business mind your own business.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.