If someone proposes a solution to an "existential problem" that has no chance of success, should we be forced to take the problem seriously?

If the climate alarmists truly believe there is a climate emergency, then they should be able to answer the first basic question about "the plan."  Are the numbers in the plan even remotely achievable?  Remember: based on their screeching, we have only twelve years before we all die from "man-made climate change."

To answer that question, let's break part of the plan into the most basic math problem: can we replace 25%, 50%, or 75% of the cars on the road in ten years?  To understand the theoretical possibility, we will simplify this to how many years will it take to replace all vehicles on the road in the U.S.

I will start with how many vehicles are on the road today in the U.S.  According to this link, in 2020, there were 286 million.  I will round that to 300 million to simplify the math.

How many total vehicles are sold every year in the U.S.?  This link answers that an average of a little fewer than 15 million vehicles are sold in the U.S. every year (assuming sold vehicles and production capacity are related).

How many electric vehicles are produced in the US? From this link, we produce fewer than 1 million.  I will round up to one million for my calculation.

The simple math problem is, how many years will it take to replace all the cars in the U.S. with electric vehicles (total in the U.S. rounded up / average production volume per year)?

It is 300M / 15M/year = 20 years.  This assumes two important things: first, there are no new additions into the economy of drivers and vehicles.  Second, that we can convert all production to electric vehicles overnight.

If you believe that we are all going to die in 12 years, we are eight years too late in converting to all electric vehicles even if the underlying assumptions were possible.

This simple math problem shows that the people that are screaming the loudest do not have a serious solution to the existential problem of "man-made climate change."  The automobile situation in the U.S. alone cannot be resolved in twenty years, let alone in ten years.

Here is where the math gets a little more fun:

If we are currently producing 1 million electric vehicles a year, and we are struggling to attain the materials to hit that number, what is the maximum number of electric vehicles we can produce without a "magic wand"?

I will be generous and say we can at best expect to triple production to 3M a year.  If we need 300M to be produced (300M / 3M/year = 100 years), that means that it will take 100 years just to replace all the vehicles on the road.  Companies are already struggling to get the minerals needed for batteries.  When we try to go from 1M to 2M, it will get worse and more expensive.  I can't even image the costs and environmental impact of trying to go from 2M to 3M.  My prediction is that in ten years, the best we can hope to achieve in the U.S. is replacing 10% to 15% of the vehicles on the road with electric vehicles.

Unserious people, who can't do this basic math, definitely cannot comprehend the complex science involved in studying the climate.  The numbers don't lie.  Their solution will not solve the "man-made climate problem" without a magic wand to replace every vehicle in the U.S. in one or even two generations.

Members of the Biden administration have taken to saying we need the pain to get the gain.  I demonstrate for you now that it is not possible to produce enough vehicles in 12 years or in 25 years.  Therefore, this is definitely all pain and no gain.  By destroying the U.S. fossil fuel industry, it does seem they are determined to destroy the U.S. economy from within.

Therefore, why are they pushing this agenda and this ridiculous solution?  If you believe that the "man-made climate catastrophe" is around the corner, how will destroying the U.S. and the world economy help?  Simple answer is "it won't."  The U.S. is the most innovative nation in the history of the world.  If you take us out of the equation, serious problems cannot be solved.

For those who say the globalists have a plan, I can assure you based on this high-level math that they do not have a serious plan to address "man-made climate change" (if they really believe it).  It will probably take trillions of dollars injected into the world economy and thirty to forty years to replace all gas-powered vehicles with electric (assuming we can find the minerals and components to manufacture the batteries).

Without the magic wand referenced repeatedly by globalists, there is no way to produce enough electric vehicles to make a difference.  The real question then becomes, why are they pushing to convert to electric vehicles (it won't help in time) to solve an "existential problem"?  I think we have to "follow the money" to find out.

Personally, I will continue the work on the math problems and real science to dispel the myth of "man-made climate change."  I recommend we not listen to people who are unwilling or unable to complete basic math problems when solving for this so-called crisis.  The unserious solutions will do nothing to help an unserious problem.

Maker S. Mark (a pseudonym) is a patriot who can understand and explain advanced math and science and is worried about the state of the nation and how to solve the problems we face.  United we stand, divided we fall.

Image via Needpix.