Posted on 08/15/2022 9:15:07 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
If someone proposes a solution to an "existential problem" that has no chance of success, should we be forced to take the problem seriously?
If the climate alarmists truly believe there is a climate emergency, then they should be able to answer the first basic question about "the plan." Are the numbers in the plan even remotely achievable? Remember: based on their screeching, we have only twelve years before we all die from "man-made climate change."
To answer that question, let's break part of the plan into the most basic math problem: can we replace 25%, 50%, or 75% of the cars on the road in ten years? To understand the theoretical possibility, we will simplify this to how many years will it take to replace all vehicles on the road in the U.S.
I will start with how many vehicles are on the road today in the U.S.
According to this link, in 2020, there were 286 million. I will round that to 300 million to simplify the math.
How many total vehicles are sold every year in the U.S.? This link answers that an average of a little fewer than 15 million vehicles are sold in the U.S. every year (assuming sold vehicles and production capacity are related).
How many electric vehicles are produced in the US? From this link, we produce fewer than 1 million. I will round up to one million for my calculation.
The simple math problem is, how many years will it take to replace all the cars in the U.S. with electric vehicles (total in the U.S. rounded up / average production volume per year)?
It is 300M / 15M/year = 20 years.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
The real question is whether mining for the material components of a battery are cleaner than producing an ICE vehicle.
“The real question is whether mining for the material components of a battery are cleaner than producing an ICE vehicle.”
And how much.
I don’t think their green plan adds up.
More importantly it’s based on a hoax. Global warming fears are nonsense.
I do believe in reducing pollution because it’s better.
But these ideas would only marginally change that.
There needs to be moon or asteroid mining or an efficient way to produce hydrogen.
But the forner is very long term.
Read later.
You’re too generous. The demonic objective is control, true, but the means are a massive culling of humanity first.
...They’ll figure out how to get rid of all our cars later, after they make us stop breathing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.