The last word on climate change and electric cars: “We want to get as many EVs on the road as possible,” said Mary Barra, the GM chief executive. “We believe climate change is real, and we have the ability and responsibility to create a cleaner, healthier planet.” Source: San Francisco Chronicle, “GM lays out ambitions for electric-vehicle lineup,” Mar. 8, 2020 Or does someone here want to claim that General Motors is part of the George Soros-funded global Marxist conspiracy?
You are actually buying this profit driven hype. A large percentage of the country is demanding electric vehicles and it is the politically correct thing to do. So driving profits is the only goal here. https://biv.com/article/2018/01/calculating-real-environmental-costs-electric-vehicles https://www.thegreenage.co.uk/tech/environmental-footprint-electric-cars/ https://www.engineering.com/Electro...-Electric-Car-Save-the-World-or-Wreck-It.aspx If Mary Barra and the GM board truly cared that deeply about the planet they would never manufacture another vehicle. And if you truly cared about the planet's health you would not purchase any new vehicles. Keeping a 20 plus year old General Motors 4 cylinder manual transmission running is far more responsible to creating a cleaner, healthier planet than purchasing any new General Motors vehicle, since the manufacturing environmental cost is already spread over 20 plus years and you are going to increase that vehicles life span by maintaining that vehicle, thereby decreasing that cost further. The proven bottom line is that anybody buying any newly manufactured vehicle in not acting in the best interest of the planets health. Lets see General Motors promote that, instead of selling the latest hype of EV greatness. American hypocrisy/comedy at its finest.
How green are electric cars? How green are electric cars? Are they really greener and more environmentally friendly than the cleanest conventional cars? That’s a question that is dividing opinion, even among green campaigners.... Read More
Warmist/alarmists keeps saying climate change is real, yet fail to realize no one is disputing it. Sun Rise in the East is a fact! Water flows downhill is a fact! Sun is bigger than Earth is a fact! Climate change has existed for at least 400,000,000 years, is a fact! These statements are long held to be true and based on reality, yet for some reason warmist/alarmists feel the need to say "Climate change is real", again and again, as if there is special knowledge lurking behind it. To me it is a sign of science illiteracy, since the obvious doesn't needs years of repeating, as if it is new knowledge that needs to be brought up again and again. Only science illiterates repeats 2 centuries long, well known understanding, that climate change is real over and over.
By "climate change," scientists mean climate change caused by man, not climate change caused by nature. Perhaps scientists can be faulted for using language that understates the problem. "Climate chaos" or "climate crisis" would have been better words. Referring to the current problem as "climate change" is like calling the attack on Pearl Harbor "naval change."
There is little direct evidence that man is causing the warming trend, the one that falls in line with previous warming trends back to the mid 1800's. CO2 does NOT even stop the greatly increased outflow of LWR over time from the planet, which exceeds the postulated warm forcing effect of CO2. People from many places say this over and over, Climate change is real, that is often all they say. Your rationalization over it doesn't help you.
I'm going to point out that many of these big corporations buying into the environmental hype are actually seeking to get government to intervene in the marketplace for their own financial benefit. For example, if they get government to impose mandates and marketplace quotas, then it would suddenly change the playing field and position GM to suddenly have an advantage and take the initiative (or at least that's what the executives hope, since right now GM isn't doing well, and almost went bankrupt in 2009). Since many consumers will be forced to buy electric cars and pay more. Almost every big daring pro-environmental initiative in the US (including those proposals that came close to being put into law) was pushed by special interests of a small number of big companies. For example, cap-and-trade, the lightbulb ban, and the electric car mandate at dealerships in California, even the ObamaCare insurance mandate, just to name a few. They get government to ban stuff, so there will be fewer players in the market who can provide the new approved product (often protected by technological barriers or patents), and then they jack up the prices. Obviously if you're selling something more expensive and consumers are not allowed to have other options, then you can increase your revenues and profits.
German Drives e-Motorhome 7500 Km To The Top Of Europe And Back – But Had To Charge 95 Times! By P Gosselin on 2. December 2020 Share this... 7500-km trip by e-vehicle The online German economento.de here reports how last August German e-mobility enthusiast Frank Eusterholz drove a 136-hp modified e-camper from Hanover to the northernmost point in Europe. . . .
Not framing this comment in the context of international regulations kind of undercuts your narrative here. Or didn't you want to discuss that part? And if you fail to address how those regulations were introduced in those countries, and this one for that matter, let's just be honest. I know you're not prepared for this, but....
Actually they don't. If they are referring to man induced change it is referred to Anthropogenic climate change. Of course you must have just overlooked that. However, the media doesn't actually understand the difference, and science isn't actually asked for comment when media simplify what is actually a very complicated set of conditions that frankly they couldn't be bothered by. So, given your own metaphor, what media refers to as climate change doesn't exist. As science has now generally agreed to. What you refer to as climate change is problematic given the question of how one demonstrates the fallacy of forcing and it's demonstrated limits set. What is "pearl harbor" in your discussion are power hungry elitists who are attempting to lock down the world to their benefit. Something you always seem to ignore. But, thankfully, there are plenty of us who understand this and can explain it to you at length if necessary.
With electricity that is generated on board by diesel generators... but hey, thanks for playing. Or, if you have in line rail lines, it's generated by coal or natural gas, or nuclear. But you knew that,.... right?
Not to mention strip mining the planet in search of enough raw materials to convert, plus the energy required to produce the finished products and the infrastructure needed
He originally tried to introduce a specious claim about electric motors being suitable only for small vehicles. And before you choose a side too quickly, I'm the EV skeptic.
LOL... Truth. Always overlooked as well is where do the raw materials come from, and who dies because of it... https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-50812616 Just a reminder. Cobalt kills.
I was not the poster who introduced said specious claim. Check the tape.. I did, however, add the energy sources for said electric motors who can actually do the work you suggested that they do.
Um, no, I don't think you understand. The issue is more battery supply, not so much the actual electric motors themselves. The electric motors on trains are usually powered by diesel generators, or come from power supplied through the tracks from outside.
