When in need of something that animates me enough to write a post, I have to look no further than a global warming- related story.
McCain is apparently selling an idea called the Clean Car Challenge- where the government offers $300 million to anyone who develops a battery for electric cars that meets certain goals set forth by the proposal. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m all for developing new energy technology, and these are very good goals.
However, this is driving me nuts, and I’ll tell you why. The name of the prize is WRONG. There is nothing more vital to public discourse than clarity. The language we use to communicate is the front line in the battle of clear thought. This “Cean Car” business- along with “Clean Energy”, “Clean Coal”, and the like- just muddies the waters. It is not honest discourse, it is not an honest title.
What, exactly, is being rewarded by this prize? Well:
The presumed Republican nominee on Monday proposed a $300 million government prize to whoever can develop an automobile battery that far surpasses existing technology… such a device should deliver power at 30 percent of current costs and have “the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars”.
What the heck does clean have to do with any of that? This is certainly to be a more efficient car. It is indeed intended to greatly reduce the “carbon footprint” of the driver. But is it in any sense more clean than existing electric cars which emit no emissions of any kind into the air? No!
Now of course well all know that the association intended by those who created the prize title is that this car is “clean” because it will reduce carbon emissions by its energy efficiency. There is just one problem with this. Carbon dioxide isn’t dirt, people. It’s all around you, all the time. It is not even a poisonous gas- it is vital to life. There is a real problem when the language has been manipulated to the degree that people automatically equate clean air with low carbon dioxide levels. They are two very disparate ideas. I am willing to acknowledge that, yes, perhaps low carbon emissions are a good thing. However, the real goal of an initiative such as this should be efficiency and a reduced dependency on oil, thereby creating cheaper energy.
Think about it this way- what if someone, somewhere, developed a battery powered car that emitted no carbon, required no oil, and was very cheap and efficient to operate, allowing you all the freedom of existing gas powered engines, but (for some reason) it spewed a fetid mix of (carbon free) chewing tobacco, baby diapers, and finger nail clippings all over the place? By the currently employed definition of “clean”, this car would fit to a T. But would it really be clean? Of course not. So why do we equate no carbon with clean? It makes no sense.
Look, I know there is very little common ground between myself and the global warming crowd. But can we at least make an attempt to not make the issue more complicated by bastardizing the English language in this way?
