Chop the trees, ration the cars

Irina Slav

That we live in strange times has, I believe, been established beyond the shadow of a doubt. What was once hard fact is now open to interpretation if not outright rejected as fact, which is how we get statements, made in all seriousness, that some trees may benefit from carbon dioxide. The post-truth flood, however, is still gaining momentum.

“The wildfires that ripped through Canada's boreal forest last year produced more carbon emissions than the burning of fossil fuels in all but three countries, a new study has found,” leads a story by CBC that podcast partner Tammy Nemeth shared with me a few days ago.

The study in question was led by “a carbon cycle scientist with expertise in data assimilation. His work has improved approaches for estimating sources and sinks of CO2 derived from atmospheric CO2 observations, leading to insights into linkages between the carbon cycle, climate, and extreme events.” He describes himself as a “data scientist” but that’s probably just modesty on his part.

Anyway, what Brendan Byrne and his co-authors did, in short, was raise the question of whether boreal forests — and by extension any other forests — are indeed fit for their purpose as carbon sinks, and possibly a source of carbon credits. And while you’re wondering if you read that right, let me assure you that you did. Forests are now being questioned as good for the planet because there is such a thing as wildfires.

Of course, the solution is blatantly obvious: just cut them down. No forests, no wildfires, after all. There is no possible way to argue with the ironclad logic of this final solution to the wildfire emission problem, which is obviously a far graver one than poverty in Africa or free speech in the UK. Bonus benefit: lots of material for wood pellets, also known as biomass, also known as a renewable fuel… well, bummer.

But Byrne has another solution although it’s more of a suggestion, really, as befits a reputable climate scientist. Or data scientist. Or something. The suggestion: “If our goal is really to limit the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we need to make adaptations into how much carbon we are allowed to emit through our economy, corresponding to how much carbon is being absorbed or not absorbed by forests.”

Translation: We need to double and triple down on emission reductions because our forests are not the carbon sinks we thought they were because sometimes they catch fire, not infrequently with the altruistic help of climate activists making a pointed point. Next step: cull the pets, discourage procreation, ban all internal combustion vehicles and while I hope this is just a wild conspiracy theory I have my doubts.

How about this story from 2021: By owning a pet, you are doing more damage to the environment than you might realise, whose lead paragraph states that “When pets can emit twice the carbon emissions of our homes’ electricity and kill up to 200 million wild prey in the UK every year, we cannot stay silent. Unfortunately, in many cases pet ownership is simply another form of destructive consumerism.”

I have no idea who hurt the author so badly in his formative years to turn him into such a sad, bitter (and selective) animal hater and I really don’t care, but the message, while not inviting violence against pets, is quite clear: dogs and cats are very, very bad for the environment, so you should think twice before you adopt one. Birds and frogs are totally fine, because the author has birds and frogs in his garden, though. There’s an adorable correction at the bottom of the story, too, stating that “This article was amended on 5 May 2021 to change a reference to 200 million tons of cat waste to the correct figure - 200 thousand tons.”

There are lots of stories seeking to discourage animal lovers from owning pets and, of course, there’s the whole cow cull affair in Europe, with the most recent news coming from Ireland, where the government wants farmers to kill 200,000 animals to save the climate. Per the inimitable FT, “Ireland’s cows — which belch out methane, the gas responsible for more than a quarter of global warming — are the country’s worst climate offender.”

So, forests are bad for the planet and so are animals — except birds and frogs, and other minuscule wild life. Big animals bad, tiny animals good. How could we ever let nature get away with abominations such as tigers and elephants, not to mention whales, is truly beyond me. At least now offshore wind developers are trying to deal with the whale problem while their onshore sisters are doing population control on raptors and bats.

With so many things bad for the planet, one cannot help but wonder what is good for the planet? The UK government has the answer: car rationing. Well, to be fair, this wasn’t their answer but rather the answer of carmakers that still have operations in the country, but that answer was prompted by UK government policies.

The gist of it: the UK has an EV sales target for carmakers. They must ensure that 22% of all the cars they sell this year are EVs. Since this is impossible because people don’t want EVs, carmakers are delaying deliveries of ICE cars and hybrids to dealerships.

Per The Telegraph, which cited a car dealer: ““In some franchises there’s a restriction on supply of petrol cars and hybrid cars, which is actually where the demand is. 

“It’s almost as if we can’t supply the cars that people want, but we’ve got plenty of the cars that maybe they don’t want.

“They [manufacturers] are trying to avoid the fines. So they’re constraining the ability for us to supply petrol cars in order to try and keep to the government targets.”” You’ve got to love that “maybe” there.

Once upon a time in the Totalitarian East, people had to sign up for a car purchase on a waiting list and then, a year or five years later, they got their car. The waiting period largely depended on things like party membership and standing in the party hierarchy but it was also because of an imbalance between supply and demand because centrally planned economies have targets not fundamentals.

What the UK is currently doing is taking a step further in an eccentric direction. They are forcing curbs on the supply of cars that are in actual demand while boosting the supply of hard sells. They’re probably certain this would work and everyone will splash on an EV just to get their hands on some kind of a vehicle — which is not happening. Until they mandate the EVs, that is.

When that happens — if people allow it to happen — there will be no choice and yes, this sounds like another conspiracy theory but it is in the official plans for 2035. Again, one cannot help but wonder: is anyone in the government asking why EV sales are doing so badly and what this fact implies for those 2035 ICE car ban plans? Chances are the answer is negative. In the post-truth, post-fact world the only thing that matters is what you want and not whether or not it could happen. Until reality punches you in the face, of course.

In the UK’s case, that would be the reality of car manufacturers leaving the country because “they cannot sacrifice profits by selling EVs at large discounts indefinitely,” per the above report, and the state budget losing some pretty solid tax revenues. Because essentially, carmakers are selling neither EVs nor ICE cars and hybrids in desirable numbers and even if they stay in the country for some weird reason, they won’t be making a lot of money. That’s quite unfortunate, because the UK is also set to lose around $16 billion in tax revenues from the oil and gas industry. Oh well, at least emissions will decline. Maybe.

In completely unrelated news, Volkswagen is considering shutting down factories in its home country because "The European automotive industry is in a very demanding and serious situation," and Germany’s manufacturing activity deterioration sped up last month. At least this time Reuters had the decency to not call it a surprise. In further unrelated news, Volvo has ditched it 100% EV target for 2030. Surprises abound.

Source: Irina Slav on Energy