Pain Control
No outcome is too meaningless for the sacrifices demanded in the name of climate change.
“I can no longer obey; I have tasted command, and I cannot give it up.” – Napoleon Bonaparte
We have it on good authority that it sometimes gets quite cold in Canada during wintertime. As our Canadian readers can attest, in such brutal conditions machinery often acts a little funky. Batteries refuse to turn over, hard things become brittle, fluids freeze or gum up, and dimensions of solid materials quite literally contract. Operating an automobile in this environment can be particularly challenging for the passenger and engine alike, as both need to be warmed up before they can be expected to perform within specifications. In particularly harsh conditions, a car might require 15-20 minutes of idling before the engine and cabin reach comfortable conditions, and remote car starters have become incredibly popular solutions.
An ironclad canon of the Church of Carbon™ is that parishioners are not allowed to have nice things, which explains the following bit of regulatory tomfoolery:
“In what it is calling ‘a bold move’ to combat climate change, the City of Ottawa has introduced a strict by-law limiting residents from using remote car starters to warm up their vehicles for more than one minute before driving. The law, intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve local air quality, has sparked heated debate, especially given Ottawa’s notoriously harsh winters.
The new rule allows vehicles to idle for just 60 seconds if the driver is not inside. For residents braving the cold inside their cars, idling is permitted for up to 10 minutes if temperatures are below freezing. Those caught letting their vehicle run unattended beyond the one-minute limit, even on private property, risk being fined by by-law officers.”
Further in the same report, we find an early leading candidate for quote of the year:
“‘Every little bit counts,’ said city councillor Laura Green. ‘We know it’s cold, but we also know that climate change is a real and urgent problem. This is about protecting our future.’”
We should confess that we have been unable to verify that Laura Green exists or is quoted accurately in the article. No such person is listed on the city leadership’s website, for example, suggesting her name or job title may have been inaccurately reported. Nonetheless, the quote so perfectly encapsulates one of the fatal flaws of climate dogma that we decided to run with it anyway. Not every little bit counts equally, and the inability to balance the well-being, livelihoods, and political amenability of everyday citizens against the goals of bureaucratic planners is the genesis of the ongoing global popular revolt.
Lest you doubt the veracity of that last statement, explain this:
“A Washington Democrat hopes to study the impact of medical anesthesia on climate change. The goal is to address the environmental impact of the anesthetic gases used in medical, dental and veterinary practices. The bill said the state could prohibit the manufacture, distribution, sale or use of anesthetic gases.
Senate Bill 5236 orders the Department of Ecology to commission a study of anesthetic gases, including desflurane, isoflurane, sevoflurane, halothane and nitrous oxide because they are recognized as potent greenhouse gases contributing to climate change. The study must determine the extent to which the gases are used in Washington, provide an estimate of the emissions from anesthesia, and recommend measures to either reduce or completely eliminate emissions from these gases.”
These are just two of the myriad dictates we could have chosen. Absurd and pointless, they are especially interesting because the precise carbon emissions available for reduction are quantifiable. They can also be contextualized against global trends in the great carbon counting game. What benefit does shivering in the cold during a blizzard or biting down on a leather strap during surgery deliver to the greater good? Let’s break out our trusty calculators and do our bit.