The Watch is On

   And, the watch is on. Now that former President Trump has been indicted, will it bring the "death and distruction" that he promised would come should he be indicted?

   We watch for the words that might indicate that.

  “They are agitating for unrest . . . I’m ready for whatever’s next. And I hope that every other man watching this is ready for whatever’s next,” says podcaster Jason Whitlock. Veiled language saying he is ready for violence? Who knows.

  Former Vice President Mike Pence called the indictment "an outrage." Will such language stir up indignation that could swell into violence?

  "The rule of law is suspended tonight," Fox commentator Tucker Carlson pronounced. “What you’re seeing now is lawlessness – the question is who can stop it?"

  “It almost feels like they’re pushing the population,” Carlson said. "Pushing the population"? Pushing people to do what? Could that be a suggestion calling for unrest? because if some Trump supporters believe it is their call to respond that way, they will do it.

At the Scene of Murder and Mayhem, Satan Leaves His Calling Card

   Too many guns out there? The words will hardly get out of your mouth before someone will angrily remind you guns are a Second Amendment right and don't you dare suggest taking guns away from the people. 

   There are so many, they are even falling into the hands of children, you will try to reason with them, reminding them of the 6-year old who got hold of one and shot his teacher months ago. And then you'll note that now there is a 12-year-old boy who got hold of a gun and killed the 34-year old he played video games with.

   Does that matter?

   He will look back at you with anger, the mental image swirling in his head of Americans losing their freedom as the government comes and takes their guns away. Then he will march out of the room as if he is marching off to the Battle of Lexington.

  Bless him -- he thinks it's a conspiracy. 

   And, perhaps it is -- but it just might be that it is not the government conspiring against us, but Satan. Conspiracies are authored by Satan as often as they are by anyone. Hear me out. Murder and mayhem are of the devil. The gun is an instrument of death; that is why it was created -- to kill. If Satan can spread guns across America like gravy over potatoes, he can wreak all the murder and mayhem he wants. Murder and mayhem is his calling card, and he leaves it at the scene of every murder and mass murder there is. We ought to be able to pick it up and realize that if he leaves his business card, it means he was behind it. And he isn't above doing his work by conspiracy. 

   Conspiracy? There's just as great a chance of evil forces conspiring to destroy America not by taking our guns away, but by making them so readily available. 

   I'm not saying we should not allow anyone to have guns. But, we need to realize too many guns is too many guns, and if they are falling into the hands of people who shouldn't have them, we should do something about it. Call it gun control, if you will, but when the gun is not controlled, it's called murder and mayhem.

  

   

Could Utah do Its Part in Afforestation?

   The unsolved mystery. 

   There was that famous report in 2019 from the Crowther Lab at ETH Zurich, saying 0.9 billion hectacres could be forested. That's an area the size of the United States. That's enough space to plant a trillion trees. That's enough to capture 32 percent of all human carbon emissions since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. It's enough that -- if it is true -- it is perhaps the greatest single thing that could be done to combat climate change.

   But, wait, how much of that could be done in Utah? How much land is available here?  I did go to the crowtherlab.com website, hoping an interactive map that could answer the question. Alas, the map listed tree varieties that could be planted here, but didn't identify how much land is available, nor how many trees could be planted.

   That mystery remains unsolved. 

   Utah has about 7.6 billion trees. Would there be room for, say, 3 billion more?

   And, if yes, could we -- with all our drought -- have enough water to raise them? It is said forests actually attract more water. Is that true?

   Next up: Perhaps I will have to check with the Arbor Foundation, or with the Trillion Tree Campaign. 

(Index -- Climate change info)

The Statue With No Clothes

There once was an Italian art gallery whose owners loved nothing better than to display a famous statue of a person wearing no clothes at all.  Throughout each day, the statue portraying David standing naked was viewed by throngs of people, and it was explained that when he went to fight Goliath, David went with nothing but his faith and a sling. Many statues are made to honor great men who have fixed problems in the land.  Not this one!  It was made to attract tourists from all over the world to view a naked body and praise it as a great work of art.

The only problem was that occasionally people thought it was pornographic! What with his clothes nowhere to be seen and everything else completely to be seen!

One day, two advertising officers came to town.  They said they were experts in public relations.  They said they would convince more people the statue was simply a work of art.  But in fact, they were not only public relations officers – they were deceivers. 

These fake weavers of supposed truth said they would advertise the statue as being more beautiful than any other statue in history. BUT it could not be seen that way by just anyone.  Only people who were smart and the most excellent would actually understand it was just art, and not pornography.  People who were not smart and not excellent – well, they would walk away wondering if it was just an expensive piece of pornography.

Soon, word reached the gallery owners about these two weavers of falsehood and their fine way of presenting the statue.  The owners thought, "We are most smart to own such an excellent statue!  Anyone can tell by how grand and naked it always looks! We do not need to worry about silly clothes. Clothes only hide the magnificence of the body."

So the gallery owners went to see the two weavers of falsehood.  These clever deceivers ran about their office, pointing at other naked works of art.  They said with pride, “Look at these fine pictures!  Surely you have never seen pictures and statutes so bright, naked and wonderful as these! Aren't they beautiful!”  The gallery owners were excited – there was not to be seen clothes on any of them! 

The gallery owners thought, “We cannot let anyone discover that this is pornography!  Who knows what they would think of the statue then!”  So they agreed with the advertising agents. “Indeed!  These works of art showing naked people are magnificent -- and in our gallery we have the most beautiful work of art anyone has ever seen!” 

As it turns out, the gallery had been closed for remodeling and was about to reopen.  This would be a special day in which tourists from all over the world would return and again line up to admire the statue and cheer him as he stood naked in the hall. For the reopening, the gallery owners wanted to increase the advertising announcing how great the statue was so no one would dare call it pornographic. Only a weaver of falsehood could help them with this.

Yet there was very little time.  Could they advertise enough before the grand reopening?  The two advertising agents frowned, as if they could not be sure.  Then they smiled and said yes, they could advertise so much that everyone would surely want to come to Italy to see the naked statue unveiled again. But it would cost much extra money for the public to be persuaded in time. 

The gallery owners paid it all.   The two deceivers held the money tight to their chests.  They produced a wave of new advertising. They bought new ads not only in the larger tourist magazines, but also in the small ones.  That way everyone would say, “Look at these great pictures of the statue of David!  It is a magnificent work of art that should always be admired and never be  considered pornographic!"

On the morning of the grand reopening, the owners of the statue came to the advertisers' office and thanked them for all they had done.  They felt sure that with this great amount of new advertising, no one would ever again see the statue as anything but a great work of art.

When it was time for the statue to be unveiled again, the gallery owners threw back the veil as they thought to themselves, “This is so magnificent a display that no one can ever call it pornographic. No one will dare suggest it is wrong for him to be wearing nothing at all.”  And indeed, that is how it seemed!

The gallery owners brought in mirrors so the public could examine every ripple of the statue's magnificent muscles. He really must be art to have been carved so well. Surely, it should be clear that to put clothes on him would only ruin the work. 

At the unveiling, the statue stood tall and proud.  Each person who saw him standing there thought, “I cannot believe what I am seeing! The statue wears no clothes!”  But each person said nothing, preferring instead to simply enjoy it.  They knew that only people who were smart and excellent could enjoy such a work of art without thinking it pornographic.  So instead they cheered, “There stands the statue of David!  Doesn’t he look fine!”

All of a sudden, one little boy from a grade school in Florida called out, “Look!  The statue has no clothes!”  Everyone gasped.  Then another child called out, “Look at him!  He has nothing on at all!” 

Then someone gasped.  And someone else.  Then more and more people started to gasp.   Someone said aloud, “Would you look at that? The statue has no clothes!”  Soon, everyone was calling out and gasping.

“Oh dear!” thought the owners of the statue.  “Now everyone knows it is pornographic!  They will know we decided to call it art just to convince them to adore it. What will they think of it now?” 

But the show had to go on, so the statue continued to stand.  And the Accademia Gallery of Florence continued to insist the statue wasn't pornographic at all. 

(Index -- Stories, My stories)

Netanyahu Wants More than just to Be Prime Minister

 

   Danger in Tel Aviv? Danger in Isreal? Is the nation teetering into falling into the hands of Benjamin Netanyahu?

   The nation boiled over yesterday with people pouring into the streets to protest Prime Minister Netanyahu's firing of Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, after he spoke out against the overhaul of the judiciary system.   

   It is the judiciary overhaul that has the people angry. And when somebody finally stands up against the changes, as Gallant did, they get fired? If the people fear the overhaul is designed to give Netanyahu autocratic control, the silencing of voices that speak against it only furthers their concern. If you disagree with a dictator, yes, that's the way it works. If dissent is not allowed, that's the way it works. But, it shouldn't be that way.

  Just as we worry about the possibility of autocratic rule taking over America, so should we be concerned about it possibly happening in Israel.

To Ban the Gas Stove or not to Ban the Gas Stove, that is the Question

   To cook with natural gas, or not to cook with natural gas, that is the question. Is it a health hazard? Does it contribute to greenhouse emissions? Will commercial restaurants be able to survive without it? Will food ever taste the same if the day comes it cannot be cooked on a fire-heated grill?

   All important questions for our day, right?

   Saturday, Fox Business brought in a chef and restaurant owner, Andrew Gruel, who announced that "all this is junk" and "absurdity." "We're living in a tragic comedy," he said, lamenting the thought that new gas stoves could be outlawed in New York.

   "We've completely lost our minds," Gruel said early in the interview. He explained that with the move to make energy renewable, "they are going to create as many stories as they can, and try to piece together statistics that really have no connection."

   With apologies to Gruel, yes, a quick search of the Internet does reveal that natural gas can be a health hazard. And, I don't think even he believes it is not a greenhouse gas. Instead, he suggests that if you take away gas heat, you will be left to rely on fossil fuel-powered energy, which is worse.

  Fox Business and its guest, Gruel, were speaking mostly of New York, which is considering furthering its restrictions against natural gas. Will it have to be replaced by fossil fuel-fired plants? Will it be? New York City's largest fossil-fuel plant, which generates 20 percent of the city's electricity, is coming off line. It is being replaced by offshore wind power. So, the move to reduce natural gas is not being done in a void without a cleaner source to replace it. 

  Which brings us to the question of what becomes of restaurants. "You cannot commercially cook food without gas right now," Gruel said.

   The alternatives to gas stoves is what is called induction heating. And, as fine of establishments as Michelin three-star restaurants The French Landry in Napa Valley and Alinea in Chicago have vowed to switch to energy-efficient electric.

(Index -- Climate change info)

Is Trump Blatantly Calling for Violence?

   When he warns of "death & destruction" if he is arrested, is Donald Trump calling for his supporters to kill and destroy if he is arrested?

   Read this Friday post by the former president on his social media site:

“What kind of person can charge another person, in this case a former President of the United States ... and leading candidate (by far!) for the Republican Party nomination, with a Crime, when it is known by all that NO Crime has been committed, & also known that potential death & destruction in such a false charge could be catastrophic for our Country?”

   Who would arrest me knowing that the if they do so, my supporters will unleash death and destruction? Is that what you are saying, Donald? And, with that tone, aren't your supporters going to feel a call to administer death and destruction? 

   This was not his first suggestion of violence. A week ago, he decried that the country is being destroyed "as they tell us to be peaceful!" The tone of that is as if to say, No, we will not be peaceful. We will not stand peacefully by while our nation is being destroyed. 

   There has been concern that Trump might have incited violence in the past -- Jan. 6. To read his words now, he is certainly being no less blatant, but is perhaps being more so. 

Announcing the Utah Summit on Climate Change 2024

 Dreams and dreams. I've one today. It's on a road too distant, and across a bridge too far, perhaps. But, I have a dream.

  What if I were to invite every Utah environmental group to a summit? No -- what if I were to invite not only all of the Utah players, but maybe some national and international groups to a summit in search of solutions just for the state of Utah.

  A big convention, not a small one. I don't know that any state has ever held such a summit, but no matter. Hold it at the Exposition Center in Sandy, or some such large venue. Invite environmentally woke (oops, sorry about that word) celebrities to come and stir up excitement for all the things that can be done. 

   Rally the troops, so to speak -- meaning rally the public to support the imperative actions we need to take if we are to avoid the more drastic effects of climate change. Have the current state of affairs all documented and distributed to the participants even before they arrive so they will be better prepared to offer solutions. Have the history of environment in Utah before them  -- including interesting little tidbits like the fact that the first approval of a coal mine after the Supreme Court ruled the the EPA had authority to regulate greenhouse gases came in Utah -- and how the Sierra Club fought that approval in court and won, setting a precedent for all the nation. 

   Have a large car show, featuring every all-electric that you can, from the Tesla to Tango (a little-heard-of car, but one created not far away in Spokane, WA).

   Hold the confab in early January, just before the legislative session, to pressure the legislature to take action.

   This dream is far enough down the road that you will forget I ever suggested it by then. And, I'm guessing I won't even attempt it.

   But, who knows. The seeds of reality are often planted by dreaming. And, a dream doesn't become unattainable just because it becomes big.

(Index -- Climate change info)

Elon Musk News, Good and Bad

The good and the bad about Elon Musk of late.

First, he has said rival Rivian Automotive will go bankrupt unless they change their game plan drastically. And, as it has turned out, Rivian is struggling mightily, leaving those watching the industry speculating if Rivian will go under, and leaving Musk looking like the Savant he is.

Second, Tesla has open-sourced all its designs and pattens, meaning anybody can use the protected designs for free. The thought there is that he -- knowing his company can not convert the world to electric vehicles on its own -- wants his competition to succeed. Benevolent of him.

Third -- and now the negative news -- Tesla battery packs are imbedded in the structure of the car, leaving them with what experts say is "zero reparability." As a result, if the batteries are so much as scratched in an accident, you have to replace the whole car. Insurers don't like that, and it drives up the price of insurance. Perhaps worse, if the whole car -- even if it's new -- has to be replaced, it means all the factory emissions that accompany constructing a new automobile must be repeated. Bad move, Elon. If the idea is to reduce greenhouse emissions, this is not the way to go about it. But, it can be a wise business decision. If the car has to be replaced, that means Musk might sell two cars instead of just one.

Fourth, some of the residents of Bastrop, Texas, where Musk's Boring Company operates, are upset with plans to dump waste water (from both Boring and nearby SpaceX) into the Colorado River. Treated water, mind you, not untreated water. Still, the residents (not all of them oppose Musk's plans) do not trust Musk, looking at his record regarding compliance with regulations, and wondering if he will comply with the limitations.

While They Debated, the Jets Swooped down to Kill Them

   If we were under a foreign military bombardment, it would be past time for listening to those suggesting the attack was a hoax and didn't even exist. 

   Stalling tactics -- stalling tactics to allow them to continue to reap billions off fossil fuels as long as they can. While the world washes away, they insist we should discuss the issue first before hyperventilating.

   Climate change. Unfortunately, the time to talk is over. Yes, it's as if missiles were raining down on America and someone suggested we make sure we're under attack before we make some rash, drastic response. 

   We're under attack. The time to talk is over. And a drastic response is all we have. 

   “Humanity is on thin ice – and that ice is melting fast,” U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said Monday. “Our world needs climate action on all fronts – everything, everywhere, all at once.”

   There will be those who discount Guterres' warning -- his call to war against climate change. To some, the UN is not to be trusted. It's one-world ambitions put it beyond repute.

   So, take the warning from another source. "We're hurtling down the road to ruin and running out of time to change course," said Manish Bapna, president and CEO of the Natural Resources Defense Council

   Yes, if we were under a foreign military bombardment, it would be past time for arguing about who the enemy is. If you're seeing those who only want to save you as those who would assail you, there's trouble.

   . . . And, while they debated whether there were fighter jets in the skies above, the jets swooped down on them.

(Index -- Climate change info)

 

Large Number of Congress Members don't Worry about Climate Change

   In the 2020 election, 69 new representatives and senators were swept into office. Of them, one-third deny the science of climate change.

  And, they walked into a Congress that was already filled with climate change skeptics, bringing the total to139 legislators -- 109 representatives and 30 senators. True, the number of disbelievers in Congress has been declining, but it still remains an astonishing high number.

  If action on climate change is urgent -- and the consensus of scientists is that it is -- the danger of not getting something done is worrisome with so many packing the halls of the Capitol who do not worry about it themselves.

  "This Earth warming and carbon is actually healthy for us," Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene once famously said.

  Of note, the climate-denying members of Congress have received more than $61 million in lifetime contributions from the coal, oil, and gas industries.

(Index -- Climate change info)

Does a Forest Entice Rain Out of the Sky?

   If you want to get over a drought, plant trees -- I mean alot of them. Make them so thick, you'd think you're in the middle of the Amazon Rainforest. 

   Turns out, vegetation and trees draw water out of the soil and exhale it into the atmosphere through processes you and I don't understand because we didn't take the right classes in college. And, water is drawn in from vapor from nearby atmospheres and from nearby water bodies. 

     Anyway, next time someone tells you the Amazon Rainforest exists because there's alot of rain, tell them actually it's the other way around -- the massive rains exist because of the rainforest.

   Now, don't run out and try to persuade state officials that all Utah needs to do is plant billions and billions of trees and the drought will be over. And, don't try to tell the other drought states the same. Just tell Nevada folk the reason for their drought is that they gamble too much. And, tell the people in California their drought is because they have too many movie stars. It sure wouldn't be cool if we persuaded the state it could escape its drought only to simply multiplying our crisis. In 2019, research headed by a team from the University of Utah found that some trees and plants use so much precious soil water that they only make the droughts worse. Common sense, there. 

   In January, Salt Lake County Council member Dea Theodore implored state leaders to take the trees down, not plant more. The trees are consuming trillions of gallons of water that would otherwise flow downstream into the Great Salt Lake, she said. Thinning the trees, she added, would restore enough water for the Great Salt Lake to be well on its way to reaching satisfactory water levels in just five years. 

   But, not so fast. As we mentioned at the top, studies -- I believe even the one from the University of Utah -- are also showing that if the trees and vegetation are thick enough, they draw the water in, then splash it back down, drenching the land below. (It rains about 200 days of the year in the Amazon.) Yes, it is hot in the Amazon, but the rains do have a cooling effect. 

  One wonders if Mother Nature had everything all figured out before man decided to step in and interfere. Everything; she had it all figured out. Even soil erosion and nutrient depletion (I'm thinking of the farmer) caused by rainfall. The roots of the trees and vegetation help anchor the soil so it does not wash away and the nutrients do not wash out.

   Alas, even if we did plant billions and billions of new trees, it would take trillions and trillions of gallons of water to get them tall and leafy enough that they would be drawing in moisture and sending it back as rain. Still, one wonders but what using this knowledge of rain creation might be something we could take advantage of it some places in America and in some places in the world. 

  Work with Mother Nature, don't fight her. 

(Index -- Climate change info)

Slap a Tree Canopy Over that Farm

    Put canopies over our farms. No, I don't mean large urethane canopies; I mean tree canopies. Plant trees right out in the fields to protect the plants below. Seventy percent of the world's water is used for agriculture. Globally, enough water is used to cover the entire United States under two feet of water. Put some shade on the land and both the crops and the livestock will need less water. 

  The roots for crops are shorter than those of trees. So, as the water from irrigation sinks deeper, it drops below the root system of the crops. Trees, on the other hand, have deep roots and can utilize the water that escapes beyond the reach of the crops.

   Oh, I would guess most agriculture land cannot be covered with a blanket of trees. To begin with, the equipment used on farms would bang on the trees. And, I'm sure there would be other problems.

   But, I'm not talking of all situations. I'm just suggesting there occasionally might be instances where tree canopies would be beneficial. There might be occasions where a farmer looks at all his fields and decides that one of them might work.

   And, there are parts of the world where water is a precious commodity, and should be conserved. The cattle out grazing in the field would be kept cooler. The crops that do not need too much sun -- leafy vegetables and such -- could be planted in areas that are moderately shaded during part of the day or receive filtered sunlight all day. In fact, shielding these crops as the season heats up helps them last longer. 

  Plus, such practice would help us utilize our land better. Agriculture -- as necessary as it is -- does have its consequences as forests are knocked down to make room for farming and ranching. We need to go no further than the Amazon Rainforest to know this. So, if you double use your land by planting peaches above and strawberries below, you help protect the world from climate change. Strawberries require at least eight hours of sun, but there are strawberry varieties that can grow in shade.

  Grain? In contrast to what you might expect, grain yield can actually increase in shade.

  Alfalfa uses a lot of water, but the amount needed is governed by temperature, wind, humidity, and how intense the sunlight is. There might be some situations where Alfalfa could be grown in mildly shaded fields.

  No, shading agriculture land probably isn't practical in most cases, but it probably would work in some. 

(Index -- Climate change info)

Utah Should Do a California and Mandate EV Sales

    If you are one of the most polluted states in America, Utah, nobody should need to light a fire underneath you to get you make some definite improvements.

   No, that fire should be lit the moment you get the news.

   And, if about 50 percent of your pollution comes from car emissions, where do you think you ought to start?

   And, if the best solution to solving car emissions is to replace gasoline cars with electric cars, what should you be doing?

   The question is, how do you go about it? The citizens would probably rush to electric vehicles if they were more affordable. And, though the cars could probably be made a lot cheaper if only the car companies decided to charge less, they remain out-of-budget for the average American.

   And, the average Utahn.The average sticker price for a new EV is $61,488 -- and most Utahns cannot afford that. 

   So, what do you do? Roll out minimum sales thresholds for the electric vehicles? Do a California, and tell the automakers that 35 percent of their new 2026 models must be zero-emissions -- and by 2035, every new car sold must be zero-emissions. That's what California is doing, and Utah should follow suit.

  The automakers would then be forced to lower their prices on electrics if they wanted to sell enough to meet the thresholds. Utahns -- well, most of them -- will buy EVs if they can afford them. 

   But, go a step beyond what California is doing. Encourage the start up of new EV manufacturers right here in Utah. Don't give them direct subsidies, but help them find land and give them reduced prices on land on which to locate. Maybe give them tax breaks, with the understanding there will be a sunset on those. 

   But, require them to produce a less expensive model than what is on the road now -- putting a high limit of, say, $13,000 for all their models. That can be done. Chevy once sold a Spark EV for about that little. Interestingly, Chevy has pulled the Spark EV off the market. 

(Index -- Climate change info)

Letter to My Congressman Opposing Carbon Capture

  Thank you for your reply, congressman. I appreciate your saying we must go beyond "feel good" solutions to doing things that really make a difference. If you would, please consider whether carbon capture is largely just a feel good solution. Despite billions of dollars being invested in this technology, there are no carbon capture success stories -- none -- only gigantic failures. For example: the Petra Nova coal plant in Texas, once the poster child for CO2 removal, under performed time after time, before it eventually was closed for good.

  Carbon capture is extremely energy intensive. In essence, it requires building a new power plant to serve the system. And that of course means creating another new source of pollution just to try to get rid of the first one. Doesn't that negate the whole goal of capturing carbon in the first place? Currently, more emissions have been put into the atmosphere by carbon capture systems than have been taken out. Consider this: we emit 5 billion tons of carbon into the air every year. To remove just 1 billion tons of that through the carbon capture process would require using close to all the electricity output of the United States. 

  What I am saying, is it is far from practical. The oil companies might be pitching it as a solution, but it is not. If you are being approached by lobbyists who are trying to persuade you that it is an answer to our problem, tell them, Hey, that's great. If that's the case, I can introduce legislation tomorrow requiring all industrial companies to not only have carbon capture, but to have systems that significantly reduce the pollution. And, if you don't meet the standards, you will face significant financial penalties.

  I assure you the Big Oil lobbyists will not take kindly to your proposal. If they suggest that they just need to be given time, and they can make it work, tell them there is no time. We can't be laying our future on a technology that might or might not work, especially knowing it could take decades to develop even if it does work. Tell them there are already technologies in place that will dramatically reduce our emissions if we will just use them. Tell them that, yes, they are the villain here. Tell them you aren't buying their spin that continued use of carbon fuels and saving our planet need not be mutually exclusive. Tell them, that is not what scientists are saying, and you are inclined to believe a scientist before you are a lobbyist. Tell them that the first step to correcting their fault is to recognize it, and it is time for them to recognize they need to change. Not villains? They don't need to be villains, but as long as we empower them, they will be. A criminal doesn't stop being a criminal until you put laws in effect making what they are doing a crime. Destroying the world is a big crime. 

  Please listen to the people instead of to Big Oil. The two have different objectives. Big Oil's objective is to make a profit. People, on the other hand, want to survive the threat of pollution. Forgive, but who are you going to listen to -- us or the lobbyists?

 

 One more thought: In January, the Biden administration announced it plans to provide up to $2.52 billion to fund carbon capture programs. Please introduce legislation against this.

(Index -- Climate change info)

The World of Cheap EVs, from the Hongguang to the Polaris GEM

    You want a cheap electric vehicle? I can tell you where to get one. Would $809 be too much? Go to aliexpress.us/item/3256804913775345.html? and pick your little monster. You won't know what you're buying, though. What's the brand name? They don't say. How many miles/years are left on the battery? They don't say. Does it come in a wooden box and you have to construct it?

   So, you say no to AliExpress and decide to move on to a brand new electric from China. The Chinese make the cheapest car in the world, and over there Hongguang is the best-selling car of all cars on the road. The Wuling Hongguang Mini EV has a price starting at about $4,500 in U.S. dollars. But how much would it cost in America? Double that? 

  Well, they say the Wuling Hongguang is the cheapest car in China, but at $4,500, is it? China is also home to the ChangLi Electrek. Over there, you can get it for about $900. But here in America, it costs $6,500 -- plus maybe $800 for shipping. 

  But -- wait -- that is if you buy the Electrek through Electric Import Motors (EIM). What if you were to sidestep EIM and buy it through the Alibaba website? Well, that would put you back in the game. I've read that fees, taxes and shipping might perhaps total only $3,000. Stacked on top of the $900 sticker price, that still leaves you only paying about $4,000. Finally, we have an affordable car.

Or do we? 

  Alas, ChangLi vehicles are said to be not street legal in most areas of the U.S. And, with parts and windows and all needing to be made by a DOT-approved manufacturer, that isn't going to happen. 

  Here is another option for those of you desperate to find an EV you can afford: buy a Chevrolet Spark EV. It might be out of budget for most of us, but it might just make it for some. I am not finding figures on the 2022 model (and they probably all sold out), but the sticker price on a 2016 Spark EV 1LT was $25,995. Too much, you say? Well, you could rip the price down by about $11,000 by taking advantage of federal and state tax credits -- leaving you to pay less than $15,000.

  While Chevrolet ceased production of the Spark EV in 2022, there are still used models on the market. Unfortunately, though, the battery life is only 3-5 years, so a used model might not be much of a deal. (At 3-5 years, even a new Spark becomes expensive.)

  Have we exhausted all our options? Let's try a few more: First, march down to your nearest Polaris dealership -- yes, the folks who make the snowmobiles, and ask if they have any cars (carts might be the more appropriate term) from their Global Electric Motors (GEM) division. The little GEMs might be as cheap as $15,000 or less.  On the plus side, they are American-made, being produced in Anaheim, California. 

  Then, how about the Smart car from Mercedes-Benz? They've quit making them in the U.S., but some used ones might still be available. Myself, I've quit seeing them.

  Or is this affiliated with Smart (probably not)? I find a "Smart For Two" being advertised at BodyKits.com for a mere $1,499! It says it is made by Vertical Doors, Inc. So, I call the number the ad provides. Alas, you don't get a whole car. You are buying but a Lamborghini door kit.

(Index -- Climate change info)

Note: the following was not part of the original blog, but is some pricing I found on the cheapest models:

10. Honda e   $30,000

9. Nobe GT100   $29,000

8. Volkawagen E-Up   $27,000

7. Smart EQ For Two   $23,900

6. ElectraMeccanica   $18,000

5. Toyota C-Plus Pod   $16,000

4. Microlino   $12,000

3. Renault Twizy   $9,700

2. Citreon Ami   $6,000

1, Wuling Mini EV   $4,500

In Quest of the $10,000 EV

   It does seem it should be possible to produce an electric car for under $10,000, perhaps not one with a lithium-ion battery, mind you, but maybe one with an old-fashioned lead-acid battery. Strip this car down -- give it no frills. 

   Why? Because there are those of us who would like to buy an electric car -- just to be helping the fight against greenhouse gases -- but at $30,000, we have no chance. Elon Musk has no car for us.

   Yes, I am aware a 1900 model Phaeton electric cost about $2,000. And, yes, I know inflation means a dollar back then would be worth $35.62 today. But, I still cannot help but wonder that something so simple as a metal (or fiberglass) structure around a battery and electric engine might could be done for $10,000. Electric engines have few moving parts, so the expense should be much more minimal. I'm thinking there are probably a few tinkerers who have built homemade electrics for $10,000, so why not offer one to the public?

  Of course our little electric would not be purchased by enough people to convert Utah to EVs. But, it just might make a dent. What is the harm of producing such a car and giving it a chance to find a niche in the market?

Of Carrots and Driver's Licenses Just for Those with EVs

   More is accomplished with carrots than with whips. We do need to rid the world of fossil fuel cars. It is urgent. But a law banning them wouldn't go over too big. 

   So, hold some carrots in front of people. How about offering discounts at all participating merchants? It would be a volunteer program -- the stores wouldn't be compelled to participate. But, if your trip to the store was accomplished by driving an electric vehicle, you would be rewarded with a discount.

  Of course, you are thinking, What would stop anyone from just saying they drove in in an electric even though it is a gas-guzzler they drove? When you issue them their driver's license, mark that it includes electric driving. 

  So, you say, what's to stop them from using the "electric" drivers license even though they leave the electric vehicle home and drive in in their gasoline car? When they register their vehicle, have a tracker devise installed on it that connects to a chip on their driver's license. The merchant scans the driver's license, determines that the car is out in the parking lot, then issues the discount.

  I know there will be those who try to scam the system, but there are ways to keep them honest. What is going to be funny, though, is when somebody pulls up to a gas station and tries to use an electric driver's license.

(Index -- Climate Change Info)

Bullet Trains, Merchant Discounts, and a Chance to Play Chess

   Make it cheaper for people, and make it faster for them; if they want to travel from Salt Lake City to St. George, make it so they can purchase a train ticket for half the price of a tank of gas -- and make it so they can get there in a third of the time.

  Convenience sells, and so does comfort. Make it so they can lay back and sleep, watch a movie, connect to the Internet -- or play a game of cards like they did in days of old while traveling on trains. (Wait, my preference is chess; can we let them play chess, too?)

  And, why are they going to St. George? Headed over to Zions National Park? Give them discounted tickets. For that matter, give them discounts for all goods and services at participating merchants anywhere in the area. 

  We're going to construct bullet train lines for this transportation. Japan's Shinkansen bullet trains can hit speeds of 320 miles per hour. This is America. There is no reason we can't have such bullet trains here. This is Utah, and Utah always seems to consider itself ahead of the curve. Time to prove it, Utah.

  The idea behind all of this is to move into the second half of the 21st Century by converting our travels to electricity. Bullet trains are electric. The automobile is pouring tons of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere and long trips are a fair part of that.  If we don't stop greenhouse emissions by 2050, heaven help our world. (And, if we don't do something on our own, why should we expect heaven to help us?)

(Index -- Climate change info)

Figure Out a Way other than Shooting Them Down that Might Work

  And the world's aviators began scrambling to find ways to cut back on their greenhouse emissions. What choice did they have? The environmentalists were pointing a finger at them, explaining that 11 percent of non-military transportation emissions come from aviation.

   Eleven percent! And you thought it was all cars and trucks causing the problem. Compare that 11 percent to the carbon footprint of vehicles, which account for 16 percent of the world's CO2 emissions. Who would have thought airplanes were so close to cars and trucks in how much damage they do to the atmosphere.

  Now, this is not an easy fix. It's not like you can plop an electric engine in a plane and say, "That should do it." (The aviators and climate change scientests are working on such a proposition, but not making enough headway.)

  For the moment, the best way to reduce air flight emissions is to reduce air flight itself: Take a few airplanes out of the sky. (No, don't shoot 'em down; that ain't what I mean.)

   Tax frequent flyers -- would that help?

   Tax the airlines for any flights that are continually less than 50 percent full. Or, are most flights almost always fULL?

  Discourage businesses from flying their officers when Internet meetings would be quite suffice?

  Oh, and this is one that would stir up a hornet's nest: Ground sports teams. Tell them, "Nope, you are going to have to take a train, maybe even a bus." You would have to make it mandatory, because if one team did it and none of the rest did, guess which team the athletes would say they don't want to play for?

  Encourage tourists and vacationers to stay home, or at least close enough to home that it doesn't take an air flight. Can't you just get by going to lagoon instead of traveling all the way to France? Aah, I don't know that we should frame it quite that way. 

   Now, if all these measures don't make a big enough difference, then we can start shooting planes down. (OK, OK, I guess we still better not do that.)  

(Index -- Climate change info)

True? If You Save the Elephant, You Save the World

  There are just not enough elephants in the world. They are going extinct. Too many ivory hunters. Too much habitat destruction.

  And too much pollution. A few elephants have died from plastic poisoning -- eating plastic that humans have dumped. 

  Save the elephant, save the world. Well, that might be going a little far, but they are integral to our ecosystems. Truth said, without elephants, ecosystems would crumble. You'd be surprised at the things they do for the ecosystem.

  1. In dry seasons, they use their tusks to bore holes in the ground, creating water holes for themselves and other animals.

  2. As they walk through forest area, elephants knock through some trees, creating gaps where sunshine can make it through to new seedlings. Elephants eat from the trees, and stomp down other trees, thus thinning the forest, enabling the surviving trees to grow up taller and larger than those in the rest of the rainforest. 

  3. While eating large amounts of vegetation, they roam around, spreading seedlings fertilized in their dung, and thus enabling new vegetation. 

  4. They flatten shrub land to create savannahs, enabling predators to see their prey easily and hunt efficiently.

  5. Their dung? The dung of an elephant is food to a baboon, who pick the seeds out of it, and the remaining dung feeds the dung beetles. 

  6. All living things are made of carbon, and the larger the animal, the more it stores. And the longer it lives, the longer it stores that carbon. At one point, an estimated 26 million elephants roamed the earth. And today? There are less than a half million. That's a lot of carbon.

  Did we say it might be going a little too far to say, "Save the elephant and you save the world"? Well, not everyone sees it that way. The group Wildlife Survivors calls the elephant a keystone species (along with the honeybee), and suggests the planet cannot survive without it.

(Index -- Climate change info)

They Farm out the Wind, but They Should Farm It Themselves

   Are farmers perhaps sitting on a goldmine, and they don't even realize it? Wind potential in just three states -- Texas, Kansas, and North Dakota -- would satisfy the electricity needs for all of America. 

   Don't let it go unnoticed by you that a lot of the wind farms could be -- and would be -- located on agriculture land. As is, farmers are paid for hosting wind farms, getting, say, 2-4 percent of gross incomes. The question is, why take just a piece of the pie when you can have the whole thing? 

   Why not the farmers band together in county-wide cooperatives and create their own power companies? Why not they, instead of just hosting energy producers, become the energy producers, themselves?

   Yes,  there is the factor that they know nothing about the industry. But, you hire people to fill that niche. When you set up your company, you bring in the wind engineers needed to staff and head it. You are the CEO, and they are the COO. A lot of times, this would translate into the farmers hiring the very same companies that are now doing the job anyway -- except the farmers would now be the bosses.

   There's a lot of gold in them-there hills. Where there's a wind farm, there's a windfall. They are farming out the wind, but instead the farmers should be farming the wind themselves.

(Index -- Climate change info)

The Earth Cries for Help

  Waking from my sleep last night, I looked out my window and into the skies and saw thousands upon thousands of blinking red lights, warning of an emergency, warning of an emergency called warming. These were the skies themselves speaking. "Urgent, urgent, urgent -- emergency."

  I wandered outside and down along the river. The lights were blinking in the trees, and in the rocks of my footpath. They swirled in the rivers, blinking and shining as they cried: "I am not just a river that can drown. I, myself, am drowning. Your pollution is killing me!"

  I listened to the wind, and in the wind, I could hear the emergency sirens blaring, the horns a honking. "Urgent, urgent, urgent -- emergency."

  If the earth could speak, this is what it would say; this is what it would cry. With emergency lights a flashing, it would scream: "Urgent, urgent, urgent -- please save me; please spare me. Help! Help! Help!"

(Index -- Stories, story, My stories)

(Index -- Climate change info)

(Unfinished poems)

We Are Like Angry Children with a Table Full of Guns

OK, let's take a bunch of disagreeable kids, sit them down at a table, and get them arguing on something. Then, let's walk back in the room, see that they are arguing and fighting, and place a gun in front of each of them.

How irresponsible would that be?

Throwing a gun in their hands is like throwing gasoline on a fire. 

When someone gets angry, they are prone to lash out. And, if they are angry and upset enough, they lash with their fists. 

And, if they have a gun? What if they have a gun? 

We are an angry society. We have a lot of guns. Should it be any surprise that we are a nation filled with homocides and mass murders?

Trump Call to CPAC Translates to . . . Insurrection

   Donald Trump's address at the Conservative Political Action Conference?   It was a veiled insurrectionist speech.  "In 2016, I declared I am your voice, Today I add: I am your warrior, I am your justice -- and for those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution. I will totally obliterate the deep state."

  You can drop the word "deep." What it amounts to is that he will totally obliterate the state. By the time we get done reflecting on what he means with the word "deep," we have great reason to believe it translates into the obliteration of American democracy.

  Deep state to Trump would be anyone who opposes him, including those who occupy positions in our government. When he says he will be the "warrior" for those who have been wronged and betrayed, who could he possibly be referring to? The Capitol rioters, maybe? Who else could he be referring to? Voters who he felt were defrauded? Certainly. And, he will be their "retribution"? He will "totally obliterate" . . . who?

  That who is anyone who gets in his way. And, by the time he is done providing retribution and obliterating them, America will no longer be a democracy. It will be a nation where, if you don't like the vote, you kick out the votes you don't like and call yourself the winner, anyway. 

  That would be dictator, not a president, and it is troubling to see that this nation might be headed that way. 

The Trail of Guns Through Our Entertainment Echoes in Our Streets

   The meme comes across Facebook: "My Netflix history makes it look like I'm studying to become a murderer."

  We laugh, but there is a somber warning underlying such words. Society is affected by TV and movies. "Go ahead -- Make my day," etc.

   When there's a trail of guns through our entertainment, it echoes in our streets.

Hey, Peter, Paul and Mary, the Answer Might Be Blowing in the Wind

    It's in the wind -- or should be. Only 2.6 percent of Utah's energy comes from wind, but the state has the capability of dancing up that number by 24 percent. 

   That would easily be more than half the electricity in the state. Why don't we punch this button and go? Tilt forward and ride like the wind? 

Eighty percent of the state's population lives along the Wasatch Front. And -- wouldn't you know it -- that's conveniently adjacent to the canyon winds. The question is, would acceptable sites be available? Would the natives, so to speak, be agreeable to wind farms? 

   Across the U.S. and around the world, wind power is the fastest-growing energy source. It isn't perfect. For one thing, some birds and bats are slaughtered by the turbines. And, it does require industrial efforts to clear the land, mold the towers, manufacture the blades, and transport them to their sites. And, oh, when after 30 years or however long their lifecycle is, there's the expense of hauling them off and getting rid of them.

  But, the urgency of reducing carbon emissions in our world suggests we should to turning to the wind. It is one of our cheapest and most green-worthy sources. No energy source is perfect, and none completely lacking CO2 emissions. But do with the best you've got.

  What is the answer to our energy needs? The answer might be blowing in the wind.

(Index -- Climate change info)

Climate Change: Here's a To-Do List for the State Legislature

   The automobile is the face of greenhouse emissions. Never mind that vehicles account for only 15.9 percent of the world's CO2 emissions. It's the gas-spewing, foul-air-creating car that gets the most blame.

   And, well it should, because 15.9 percent would be a nice chunk of pollution to get rid of. So, let's go ahead and blame the automobile -- and then do something about it. 

   And, since it takes government action to achieve these things, let's have our state government step in and help us. Let's have the legislature pass a law containing 17 provisions. When we are done and finished, CO2 pollution will have been significantly reduced. 

1. Require all gas stations to have charging ports for EVs.

2. Allow EVs and other non-polluting cars in HOV lanes. 

3. Mandate up-front parking spaces be made available for EVs and other non-polluting vehicles. No, natural gas vehicles do not qualify as they do cause pollution.

4. Set a date for when gasoline and diesel cars will be taken off  the road, as California did.

5. Increase the sales tax on gas and diesel. 

6. Create a special tax on the sale of new fossil-fuel vehicles.

7. Drop the sales tax on EVs and other non-polluting vehicles.

8. Drop the registration, title, and plate fees on EVs and other non-polluting vehicles.

9. Subsidize the purchase of new EVs and other non-polluting vehicles to match the amount that is recovered from the increased taxes on fossil-fuel cars. 

10. Ban advertising on gasoline and diesel vehicles. 

11. Advertise, recognize and praise the top-selling EV (and other non-polluting) car dealerships each month. By doing so, you reward them and encourage them to sell even more. 

12. Provide free advertising for the least expensive EVs (and other non-polluting vehicles) on the road, mentioning the dealership where the cars are being sold. Since it will bring them free advertising, the companies hopefully will drop their prices to get this recognition and advertising. 

13. Undertake a public relation campaign to rally the public behind non-polluting cars and green energy. Make sure that the urgency of removing fossil-fuel cars is made clear to the public.  

14. Fund the cost of retrofitting existing cars with electric engines. Don't buy the engine for the public, but fund the work it takes to do the refitting. 

15. Provide "community cars" -- non-polluting, of course -- to the poor. Buy cars for them that are to be shared by, say, three families living in the same neighborhood. This might seem a large expense, but of the items on this list, it might be the most important. EVs are expensive, and if you get rid of gas and diesel cars, the poor will not be able to afford an EV.

16. The last two items would be funded by a carbon tax. Industrial companies would be taxed according to how much pollution they emit into the air. 

17. Accelerate the decommissioning of coal-fired power plants and their replacement with power plants that rely on solar power, wind power, and other green, non-polluting sources. When the electric vehicle is recharged, it is dependent on the power plants. So, to keep the carbon footprint at zero, those recharges need to coming from green energy sources.

(Index -- Climate change info)

Yesterday Is Not Soon Enough if We Are to Go with EVs by 2025

   It would almost be right to outlaw the sale of any new gasoline or diesel cars for as early as 2025.

   Almost, but not quite. While the urgency of getting rid of fossil-fuel cars is that great, our ability to switch over that fast to non-fossil fuel power plants would be difficult. In Utah, roughly 60 percent of our electricity comes from coal-fired power plants. We must put conversion to green power plants ahead of conversion to green cars. Here's why:

   1. Recharging batteries requires CO2 to be released into the air if the recharge is being supplied by a coal-fired power plant. Thus, it becomes important to get solar, wind, or whatever power plants in production before you switch to electric vehicles.

   2.) The switch to EVs is going to put a far greater burden on the power grid. People are not just plugging into the grid for their TVs and refrigerators and such, but now they are also plugging in for their EVs. That's a much larger draw. I do not know if studies have been done to determine how much more electricity will be needed, but it would not surprise me if the burden would increase as much as half again. Thus, it becomes important to get more power plants up, period, regardless if they are fossil fuel plants. 

   So, outlaw new gasoline cars come 2025? No, the first order of business is to get new, fossil fuel-free power plants online post haste. And, by poste haste I mean post haste. Don't dillydally; don't delay. New, not-already-in-the-works hydro power plants cannot be brought online by 2025, nor can they be brought online nearly fast enough to meet our quickly approaching needs. That leaves solar and wind, and perhaps other sources. We need to prioritize getting them online

   We should consult with the indigenous people for whatever power plants will be on their land, or land they use and land that has sacred history to them. If they say, 'no,' then we should move on to another site.

  But, we must expedite this. The approval process should be streamlined to allow the building of them to commence no later than a year from now. Then, all the fossil fuel-power plants can be decommissioned. While, in Utah, Rocky Mountain Power is phasing out carbon-creating power plants (including a notable reduction this year), the plan is to keep some of them in use as late as 2042. In my book, that's much too late. 

    The idea of outlawing gasoline and diesel vehicles by 2025 is not my own. I read it in a book in a statement by Seth Klein, team lead with the Climate Emergency Unit and author of A Good War: Mobilizing Canada for the Climate Emergency. But, if we want to convert to electric (and other green-sourced) cars by anything near to 2025, we have a lot of work to do. 

   We should do it, and do it ASAP. 

(Index -- Climate change info)

Something so Simple as That Is a Knock on Our Little Electric Car?

   One of the biggest knocks left on electric vehicles would be easy to remove. 

  You can't leave town if you own an electric? You can't travel? You can't vacation? There simply aren't enough places where you can recharge? You spend more time locating recharging stations than you do finding places to eat? 

   Now. if you will allow me, let me joke for a moment: This is all a good thing, not a bad. The plus side to this supposed "problem" is that we are going to prevent a massive amount of pollution.  Eight percent of all CO2 released into the air comes from tourism, including that from jets and boats. (I'm not joking there -- serious.) Why would we want to solve this "problem"? It is not a problem; it's a blessing. Bring it on. Once all out-of-town travel is brought to a screech, we will have gone a long ways towards putting a skid on greenhouse emissions. 

   As I said, though, I joke. Of course we need need to allow people to travel.

   But, the solution to recharge stations is simple, simple, simple. After carrying on needlessly with joking for almost all of this blog, I can state it in one sentence what it would take to make it so there were plenty enough charging places. I'll leave you to argue, but there are no good arguments against this: 

  Require every gas station to have at least one electric vehicle charging station. 

(Index -- Climate change info)

If Our Leaders Don't Believe, then That's a Problem

   As the argument goes, we don't have to live by the Paris Acccords because it takes two-thirds of the Senate to enter into a foriegn treaty -- and President Biden didn't even seek Senate approval; he figured executive order was quite enough.

  All I'll say is that if that is standing in the way of public approval of the Paris Accords, the Senate should be rushing to vote on and approve the agreement. Every senator should be saying, Oh, no, don't you lay this on me. Make no mistake. I do favor the Paris Agreement. I am in favor of it.

   They should be saying, Mr. President, don't leave us out of this. Don't you try to hog all the credit. We also want to save the planet. Anything we can do to help, we want to be part of.

   Truth be told, it is very possible that if put to a vote, the Paris Agreement would not be approved. Why? Because not everyone is onboard with the notion that climate change is a problem. Perhaps not even close. It might well be there are almost a third of our senators who disbelieve in climate change.

   And, that's a problem.

   If the top legislators of the nation that other nations turn to for leadership do not favor fighting climate change -- if so many of them disbelieve in global warming -- how do we expect we will ever dodge the bullet and survive global warming?

   If this were sports, and we rounded up some players who didn't even care about the game, that would be a problem. It's a silly game to them and they have better things to do.

   If we are going to solve the climate change crisis, we need our leaders onboard. If the people doing the leading don't even believe, don't expect them to do much leading. If they don't believe in the cause, the cause is really in trouble.

(Index -- Climate change info)