Venice suffered some historic floods in November, and we all know what the cause is: not its proximity to this strange, heaving body of liquid some call “the sea,” or the fact that Venice admits “the sea” into its city limits with a series of picturesque canals, or the fact that the entire city rests on logs and has sunk a bit over the years. No, it’s your gas stove. Also your shower. And your hamburger. The solution? Stop letting women control the temperature in the house.
It’s the only logical conclusion, but we need to set this up. First, consider the mayor of Venice: He blamed the flooding on climate change, just as Australian climate activists blamed recent brushfire maelstroms on a planet that’s falling apart like a cheap fridge a month after the warranty lapses. But Venice had a worse flood in 1966, when the waters topped 194 centimeters, as opposed to the recent flood’s crest of 154 centimeters.
You might think: America will never have that problem, because we don’t use the metric system.
True! But we will have that problem soon if we don’t change our ways. Start with the most obvious cause for the Venice floods: your hamburger. As totally moderate non-crazy right–down–the–middle–of–Main Street Pete Buttigieg said, if you’re eating a hamburger, you’re “part of the problem” when it comes to climate change.
Of course, no one is talking about hamburger confiscation; that’s wacko talk. We just want sensible regulation — a ban on private hamburger transfers (previously known as inviting friends over for a weekend BBQ), an end to the drive-through loophole, and restrictions on a hamburger’s diameter and thickness. Does anyone really need a ¾ lb. patty for personal use? Are you telling me that your “right” to a hamburger somehow trumps the right of schoolchildren in Venice to get an education without fear of drowning? Are you aware that there weren’t even hamburgers when the Constitution was written?
As for the gas stove, it’s the next target for elimination, because it uses gas. The Left, if they get control of everything, would ban it from new manufacture nationwide and then ban its replacement and ownership. (Also, Trump is an authoritarian.) If someone in Montana or Florida or Seattle says, “But I prefer gas,” you can only roll your eyes: The citizens of Venice would prefer not to be rescued by helicopter from the roof of the Campanile, but here we are, pal.
Showers are already under scrutiny by the league of modern-pleasure-confiscation killjoys. The carbon impact of that invigorating stream of hot water haunts the puritans’ nightmares. A recent article at lowtechmagazine.com laid out the problems:
If eight billion people were to shower daily [Ed. note — if only they would], total energy use per year would be 6,132 terawatt-hours (TWh). This is eight times the energy produced by wind turbines worldwide in 2017 (745 TWh). All (current) wind turbines in the world could provide only 1 billion people with a “sustainable” daily shower.
Let’s do a quick search for the term “nuclear” in the piece . . . nope.
So how do we clean ourselves in a sustainable and non-Venice-impacting fashion? The article mentions the Navy shower — you get a blast of water, then you soap up, then the water comes on again for a few seconds. My father’s description of this procedure suggested that the temperature of the water was so low that men were actually lifted a few inches in the air by the impact of their suddenly ascending testicles.
Lucky for us, the article had a new solution: mist! No more pounding stream, just a gentle mist. Alas, a five- nozzle misting shower would require the total output of all the world’s wind farms to heat the water for 8 billion people, so that’s not going to work. A three-nozzle misting shower, the article concluded, was optimal. You might say: But I don’t want to shiver in the mist. I want a hot shower so strong, it knocks the soap from my hand. Fine. Fine. And how will you feel when the news shows Greta Thunberg drowned in the Piazza San Marco, her lifeless eyes staring up in plaintive accusation?
The solution? Aside from banning cars and single-family homes, switching to hamburgers made from insects, forcing everyone to bike to work, living in dense apartment complexes, converting all the rail systems that transport goods and foodstuffs to electricity, grounding all airplanes, capping all oil wells, and taxing everyone at 65 percent?
Let men control all the thermostats. From an article in the Guardian:
“Are you a victim of thermal bullying? Does your partner or roommate always get their way when it comes to how hot your house is? If you answered yes then stay strong — you’re not alone. According to a new study, conducted by researchers from Ohio State University, a lot of households contain a ‘thermostat dictator’ who rules the temperature dial with an iron fist. As it turns out there’s a gendered nature to this — the thermostat dictator is normally a man.”
These thermostat Caesars, these heat-pump Hitlers, it should be noted, always turn the temps to a cooler setting.
Obviously, men are the vanguard of planetary salvation, and women need to sit down and listen. Put on a sweater. Take an extra blanket to bed. Men, try this the next time your partner complains that it’s too cold!
“Fish are swimming through the Venice café where Byron took coffee, and you want to turn up the thermostat.”
I’m sure she’ll understand.