Manager Report

While still suffering through my annual football withdrawals and knowing all too well that we are still several months away from the beginning of training camps, I often find myself daydreaming of seasons past. I also remind myself how lucky we are to have a great venue for watching football right here in our back yard at Arrowhead stadium. I don’t know how many of you realize that Arrowhead also holds the record for the loudest stadium in the world.  On a warm September night in 2014 in a Monday night game against the Seattle Seahawks, the Chiefs faithful (77,000 strong) offered up the loudest recorded stadium noise level of 142.2 decibels. For some reason, I couldn’t help but make the following analogy regarding carbon dioxide’s influence on the earth’s atmosphere. I hope you enjoy following along.

Let’s look at the number of fans in the stadium on that fateful night and assume that is represents the total earth atmosphere. Now let’s try to identify all the fans that would represent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Since we know the atmosphere is comprised of 2% greenhouse gasses, then of the 77,000 screaming fans, about 1540 would be greenhouse gas. Next we’ll take those 1540 fans who represent greenhouse gas and identify all of those who would be the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. Since another 3.62% of those would represent all the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere we reduce those 1540 fans to 55 crazed fans. Now those 55 fans who represent CO2 need to be further reduced to man-made CO2 so that dwindles that number to only 3.4% or 1.89 people. We’re almost there, but of all the man-made CO2 only 31% come from power plants, so after all that math the result is just 0.58 people in that stadium represent the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that comes from power plants (Coal or Natural Gas).

So now we have just more than ½ a person in a jam-packed stadium that set a world record for volume. Just how much impact could that ½ person have on noise or anything else? I dare say very little if any, yet that is the exact same math that some climate scientists are using to tell us that the same ½ person is irreversibly destroying our planet. Even more troubling is that they are willing to bet the inheritance of future generations to reduce the effect of that ½ person. It is completely irrational to believe we could totally eliminate that ½ person, so the absolute best, and after an enormous effort, you might be able to reduce it by a miniscule fraction.

The good news is that we have a new administration that is looking at this issue with concerns like the one I just outlined. New EPA director Pruitt has a lot to consider regarding the Clean Power Plan. Should he keep it in its existing form? Should they revise the plan, or should they look to scrap it entirely? I for one believe that to accept any form of punishment for an act that provides immeasurable worldwide benefit would be extremely misguided. Let’s hope common sense prevails.