Editorial takes liberties with the term 'pollution'
According to the opening sentence of the guest editorial in Sunday’s edition of The Daily Sentinel, electric-powered vehicles will “pollute” more than internal combustion vehicles burning hydrocarbon fuels.
I am not sure what The Colorado Springs Gazette Editorial Board was thinking, but that statement would appear to be total nonsense based on common sense and everyday observation.
The batteries that power electric cars are essentially very big versions of the batteries that power our cellphones, tablets, portable computers, and in fact any other portable device we own that uses some form of a lithium ion battery. These are hemispherically packaged items that if they are producing any gas during their operation, we would expect to find exploding batteries all over the place. Yes, some of these have ignited and burned, but exploding from gas accumulation, no. So exactly where does all this “pollution” come from with electric vehicles? And we better let China in on the secret, because they have a national mandate to get rid of internal combustion vehicles that are causing devastating air pollution in their major cities.
The editorial, I believe, is equating air pollution from nitrogen compounds formed from burning hydrocarbon fuels in an air breathing engine or device with the formation of CO2 which is believed to be associated with global climate change. I can see no source of CO2 coming from an electric vehicle except what is produced in normal breathing by the driver.
The “carbon” footprint associated with the manufacture of an electric vehicle may be larger than that for an internal combustion powered vehicle, but the operating longterm carbon footprint for the electric vehicle should be significantly less than the internal combustion engine; as the production of electricity becomes more “green,” the carbon footprint for charging an electric vehicle’s battery should decrease significantly compared with an internal combustion engine which creates its own “carbon footprint” every time the engine is turned on.
I am not an economist, but I do know that CO2 does not “pollute” the air versus burning hydrocarbons in an internal combustion engine, which produces that lovely brown haze we all hate to breathe.
The American Constitution is a radical, liberal experiment
Ron Sherman’s letter to the editor in Monday’s Sentinel left me wondering.
I know liberal arts colleges exist. They, of course, do not offer coursework in how to be a leftist. They do provide an education in “the humanities, social sciences, science and interdisciplinary areas,” according to the University of Colorado (a liberal arts school).
In objecting to professors with liberal politics, I have to say that, in 50 years’ worth of attending classes at five Colorado colleges and universities, I’ve never been exposed to a professor’s personal political views. Liberal or otherwise.
As a former American history teacher, I found Mr. Sherman’s opening quotation and final paragraphs interesting. Historically speaking, had Jefferson and the rest of guys been conservatives, we’d still be British citizens with Parliament making our laws. Thomas Jefferson was a radical liberal rebel, along with the other Founding Fathers.
It’s called the American Revolution because the colonists overthrew the conservative laws and practices of the British Parliament and monarchy. The Declaration of Independence is a justification of liberal beliefs that ordinary people have the right to depose a government not based on human rights.
The Constitution is a radical liberal experiment creating a new form of government where power resides with its citizens.
Seems like the ideas of the left have worked in this country ever since 1776.
Congress should increase funding for dementia research
Every 65 seconds someone in this country develops Alzheimer’s disease. I know how devastating it is for the person living with it and everyone around them. My grandfather had dementia and my parents uprooted everything they had built to care for him.
Today, there are 73,000 Coloradans living with Alzheimer’s, and without medical breakthroughs, that number is expected to grow by 26 percent within the next decade. We need to accelerate research now to ensure no family will endure what mine has. This is also a financial issue for all of us. Alzheimer’s and other dementias will cost the nation $290 billion this year with two-thirds of that cost borne by the Medicare and Medicaid programs.
Congress can help Colorado families struggling with Alzheimer’s and taxpayers by supporting a $350 million increase in the National Institutes of Health budget for Alzheimer’s and other dementias research next year. Thank you Congressman Scott Tipton for actively supporting legislation that helps Alzheimer’s families in the past and considering the value of this investment in our future — to create a world without Alzheimer’s.