Thanks for some clear, incontestable examples of the irrational actions of people who think they can change the earth’s climate. The environmental cost of EVs is particularly revealing. Why are government mandates that help fund these indulgent signallings of a supposed virtue never preceded by cost benefit studies? Presumably, part ineptitude, part fear of the obvious result, motivate the bypass of normal procedure. Political factors probably also contribute: if the costs dictate that the action is useless, then voiding the policy increases opportunities for the green left to muscle in on the voters who think something needs to done to ‘save the planet.’ Hence, useless environmental policies help marginalise the left and retain votes for the centrists. Positive alternatives to these costly and destructive responses to the end of times mania that underpins the ‘climate change’ craze are unlikely to emerge until the hypothesis that any current warming is anthropogenic is proven to be false. That is likely to take a generation or two, so strap in for a lot more of the inane policies currently being foisted on an unsuspecting population. An early warning may occur in the 2030s, when Australia’s power grid begins to crumble under the pressure of excessive renewables. The current incipient backtracking on banning further development of natural gas services is probably an early sign that the green facade is starting to crack.
Even if a Tesla is charged by coal generated electricity from the grid it has less CO2 emissions than a petrol vehicle. Petrol Engines are incredibly inefficient transferring only approx 20% of the energy in the petrol into useable energy. Coal power stations transfer 32% approx. Most batteries no longer use Cobalt. As the grid uses more renewable and hopefully nuclear generated electricity of course the difference will be much greater in favour of the EV.
Thanks for some clear, incontestable examples of the irrational actions of people who think they can change the earth’s climate. The environmental cost of EVs is particularly revealing. Why are government mandates that help fund these indulgent signallings of a supposed virtue never preceded by cost benefit studies? Presumably, part ineptitude, part fear of the obvious result, motivate the bypass of normal procedure. Political factors probably also contribute: if the costs dictate that the action is useless, then voiding the policy increases opportunities for the green left to muscle in on the voters who think something needs to done to ‘save the planet.’ Hence, useless environmental policies help marginalise the left and retain votes for the centrists. Positive alternatives to these costly and destructive responses to the end of times mania that underpins the ‘climate change’ craze are unlikely to emerge until the hypothesis that any current warming is anthropogenic is proven to be false. That is likely to take a generation or two, so strap in for a lot more of the inane policies currently being foisted on an unsuspecting population. An early warning may occur in the 2030s, when Australia’s power grid begins to crumble under the pressure of excessive renewables. The current incipient backtracking on banning further development of natural gas services is probably an early sign that the green facade is starting to crack.
He does not such thing. Lmao
Even if a Tesla is charged by coal generated electricity from the grid it has less CO2 emissions than a petrol vehicle. Petrol Engines are incredibly inefficient transferring only approx 20% of the energy in the petrol into useable energy. Coal power stations transfer 32% approx. Most batteries no longer use Cobalt. As the grid uses more renewable and hopefully nuclear generated electricity of course the difference will be much greater in favour of the EV.
I got my Tesla because it’s a fantastic car. Best one I ever owned.