It doesn’t get more Catch-22 - or 1984 Doublethink - than this!
1️⃣ EV’s use more energy (Btu’s) than ICEVs
2️⃣ Coal-fired EVs (EVs powered by electric power grids that generate electricity mostly from coal plants) emit more CO2, fuel to wheels, than ICEVs.
3️⃣ As noted, the huge amount of capital and tax dollars are being spent to decarbonize Western Grids and yield de minimus results because they are focused on ‘Renewable’ and ‘Green’ energy.
Renewable energy is not carbon free and ‘Green’ energy is not measured in reducing CO2/Btu or CO2/KWh.
4️⃣ If I’m not mistaken, the auto sector is GROWING in China as the population lifts itself out of energy poverty. Accordingly, since EVs produce more carbon emissions than ICEs via the new coal plants, the logic used by Reuters actually increases carbon emissions!
5️⃣ Based on 1️⃣ - 4️⃣, we have another example of a journalist in a major publication that believes:
- doing Google searches is equivalent to talking to subject matter experts;
- doing Google searches qualifies one to become a subject matter expert;
- doesn’t care about accuracy;
- is pursuing their own agenda; or
- is pursuing some combination of the above.
I used to believe major stories in Reuters could be trusted...
If energy is the lifeblood of all living things, why are we doing the opposite of China and other countries and shutting down our most reliable and cost effective source FOSSIL FUELS? Because burning fossil fuels produces greenhouse gases? What are considered greenhouse gases?
Water vapor= 95%, carbon dioxide=4%, other=1%. How much of the 4% CO2 is human caused? Less than 30% of the 4% is attributable to humans. That means 1.2% of CO2, the most talked about and demonized greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, when eliminated will result in a more stable climate and less severe weather events! Let that soak in for awhile....
Yes. The globalists would rather be in Asia now. Much closer to their vision of masses of obedient serfs and slaves. People in NA and EUR want too much—let them “compost,” as one multinational CEO once put it.
According to the IEA and Our World in Data, China's transport sector accounts for ~8% of its CO2 emissions. Overall, coal accounts for ~70% of its CO2 emissions. Square that circle Mr. Reuters.
China has conveniently positioned their EV manufacturing plants next to coal fired electricity plants :
China's Coal Fired EV Battery Plants
https://tucoschild.substack.com/p/chinas-coal-fired-ev-battery-plants
OMG!
It doesn’t get more Catch-22 - or 1984 Doublethink - than this!
1️⃣ EV’s use more energy (Btu’s) than ICEVs
2️⃣ Coal-fired EVs (EVs powered by electric power grids that generate electricity mostly from coal plants) emit more CO2, fuel to wheels, than ICEVs.
3️⃣ As noted, the huge amount of capital and tax dollars are being spent to decarbonize Western Grids and yield de minimus results because they are focused on ‘Renewable’ and ‘Green’ energy.
Renewable energy is not carbon free and ‘Green’ energy is not measured in reducing CO2/Btu or CO2/KWh.
4️⃣ If I’m not mistaken, the auto sector is GROWING in China as the population lifts itself out of energy poverty. Accordingly, since EVs produce more carbon emissions than ICEs via the new coal plants, the logic used by Reuters actually increases carbon emissions!
5️⃣ Based on 1️⃣ - 4️⃣, we have another example of a journalist in a major publication that believes:
- doing Google searches is equivalent to talking to subject matter experts;
- doing Google searches qualifies one to become a subject matter expert;
- doesn’t care about accuracy;
- is pursuing their own agenda; or
- is pursuing some combination of the above.
I used to believe major stories in Reuters could be trusted...
If energy is the lifeblood of all living things, why are we doing the opposite of China and other countries and shutting down our most reliable and cost effective source FOSSIL FUELS? Because burning fossil fuels produces greenhouse gases? What are considered greenhouse gases?
Water vapor= 95%, carbon dioxide=4%, other=1%. How much of the 4% CO2 is human caused? Less than 30% of the 4% is attributable to humans. That means 1.2% of CO2, the most talked about and demonized greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, when eliminated will result in a more stable climate and less severe weather events! Let that soak in for awhile....
Hmmm... Perhaps this article can put some perspective on the matter?
https://www.theepochtimes.com/article/meteorologists-scientists-explain-why-there-is-no-climate-emergency-5489139?utm_campaign=socialshare_email&utm_source=email
Yes. The globalists would rather be in Asia now. Much closer to their vision of masses of obedient serfs and slaves. People in NA and EUR want too much—let them “compost,” as one multinational CEO once put it.
According to the IEA and Our World in Data, China's transport sector accounts for ~8% of its CO2 emissions. Overall, coal accounts for ~70% of its CO2 emissions. Square that circle Mr. Reuters.