More climate change hogwash

[Richard]

Heathrow airport in London was denied the ability to add a third runway.

Why?

Because under the Paris climate change agreement,governments must provide goals to achieve in order to reduce climate change.

The protestors filed suit saying that the UK was in default of those goals in the airport expansion because airplanes are detrimental to the climate and adding more will speed up climate change.

You did not know that if the Detroit airport wanted to add a runway it would have to be approved by members of the Paris agreement. You really have no say in the matter.

Well actually not anymore thanks to the current administration.

Moving on to Canada,because offshore drilling is bad for the environment and it produces nasty polluted fossil fuel it was forbidden for Canadians to drill.

So Trudoe sold the rights to the Chinese,so they can drill.

Up or over to NYC and their new get paid to rat program.

If you see a vehicle idling for more then 3 minutes,film it,turn that film in and you will get a percentage of the fine paid by the perpetrator.

Hitler did the same thing with encouraged support of turning your neighbors and friends in to the law for anything they disagree with.

Next they will be pushing for children to turn in their brothers and sisters for forgetting to shut off the light when leaving a room in exchange for candy or money.

Or turning their parents into the authorities for standing in front of the refrigerator with the door open for longer then 30 seconds while they decide what to remove.

I wonder if one can sue NYC for having a abundance of cell phones that contribute to climate change and use slave child labor in their manufacturing process?

[canuck]

Heathrow was denied because people who live in neighborhoods and villages in the area don't want it and contested the fact that environmental validity processes had been overlooked by the government.

Drilling in Canada wasn't given to the Chinese.

You are probably talking about pipeline projects being scrapped, another thing altogether. In both cases, most people don't want anymore pipelines, especially not in their backyards. The fact that First Nations all over Canada are protesting and stalling rail traffic and are not vehemently disparaged by the general population means that Canadians, for the most part don't want pipelines, and support the aboriginal protest movement.

[Richard]

Heathrow

Together the various campaigns were challenging how the NPS followed [[or didn't follow) the rules on habitats, access, noise, costs and climate change.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politi...uling-21583740


Notice the protesters in the link with the big ass CLIMATE EMERGENCY sign? With all the little plebs holing their climate change signs next to them. Kinda hints at the real agenda.

Its an emergency,if heathrow builds the third runway we will all die in 9 years instead of the projected 10 years.


Canada

The Chinese company is proposing to conduct an exploration drilling project within two offshore exploration licenses in the Flemish Pass Basin.
“The Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Jonathan Wilkinson, has announced that the proposed CNOOC International Flemish Pass Exploration Drilling Project can proceed,” the government said on Wednesday.
The project, formerly known as Nexen Energy ULC Flemish Pass Exploration Drilling Project, would take place over eight years, starting in 2020, and would allow for CNOOC to determine the presence, nature, and quantities of potential hydrocarbon resources.

https://mobile.offshoreenergytoday.c...drilling-plan/

Minister of climate change gives the Chinese the rights to drill for off shore fossil fuel,the very thing they want to ban = more climate change hogwash


On a side note,the more I learn about Canada the more it seems like two countries with in one.

Quebec and then the rest of the country.

[Gistok]

Heathrow airport in London was denied the ability to add a third runway.

Why?

Because under the Paris climate change agreement,governments must provide goals to achieve in order to reduce climate change.

The protestors filed suit saying that the UK was in default of those goals in the airport expansion because airplanes are detrimental to the climate and adding more will speed up climate change.

You did not know that if the Detroit airport wanted to add a runway it would have to be approved by members of the Paris agreement. You really have no say in the matter.

Well actually not anymore thanks to the current administration.

Moving on to Canada,because offshore drilling is bad for the environment and it produces nasty polluted fossil fuel it was forbidden for Canadians to drill.

So Trudoe sold the rights to the Chinese,so they can drill.

Up or over to NYC and their new get paid to rat program.

If you see a vehicle idling for more then 3 minutes,film it,turn that film in and you will get a percentage of the fine paid by the perpetrator.

Hitler did the same thing with encouraged support of turning your neighbors and friends in to the law for anything they disagree with.

Next they will be pushing for children to turn in their brothers and sisters for forgetting to shut off the light when leaving a room in exchange for candy or money.

Or turning their parents into the authorities for standing in front of the refrigerator with the door open for longer then 30 seconds while they decide what to remove.

I wonder if one can sue NYC for having a abundance of cell phones that contribute to climate change and use slave child labor in their manufacturing process?

Good lord... I've not seen so much Red Herring ramblings all over the map on this forum since O3H was worrying about 5G Networks.

Are you sure you shouldn't be in assisted living down in Florida? Starting another insipid rambling thread that is stitched together in no coherent fashion.

[Richard]

^ and here you are once again with nothing productive to contribute, outside of whining.

The thread was never intended to be stitched together in order to suit your standards,but it does gravitate towards something you are well versed on.

Hypocrites.

Show me on the little doll where the thread triggered you sense it is your belief that threads are created solely to please you.

My guess is you would be one of those running around video taping idling vehicles in order to get paid.

Interesting how somebody would hold a device that was built using child slave labor and have no problems turning in their neighbors for profit without a second thought.

Hows that for rambling?

Jimmy Lai who owned Hong Kong’s best selling newspapers was arrested for participating in pro democracy protests,China is now doing mass round ups against the protesters based on video and people ratting them out for money.

It is easy to see here in this country those who would be quick to cash in against their neighbors,simply by the way they react to those who they do not agree with.

Lots of socialist minded people in this country,that think it is a normal or acceptable way of thinking.

Let me guess,you would like to create a master race of perfect posters that adhere to your personal set of standards and beliefs,and just dispose of the rest.

[JonWylie]

Heathrow

Together the various campaigns were challenging how the NPS followed [[or didn't follow) the rules on habitats, access, noise, costs and climate change.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politi...uling-21583740


Notice the protesters in the link with the big ass CLIMATE EMERGENCY sign? With all the little plebs holing their climate change signs next to them. Kinda hints at the real agenda.

Its an emergency,if heathrow builds the third runway we will all die in 9 years instead of the projected 10 years.


Canada

The Chinese company is proposing to conduct an exploration drilling project within two offshore exploration licenses in the Flemish Pass Basin.
“The Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Jonathan Wilkinson, has announced that the proposed CNOOC International Flemish Pass Exploration Drilling Project can proceed,” the government said on Wednesday.
The project, formerly known as Nexen Energy ULC Flemish Pass Exploration Drilling Project, would take place over eight years, starting in 2020, and would allow for CNOOC to determine the presence, nature, and quantities of potential hydrocarbon resources.

https://mobile.offshoreenergytoday.c...drilling-plan/

Minister of climate change gives the Chinese the rights to drill for off shore fossil fuel,the very thing they want to ban = more climate change hogwash


On a side note,the more I learn about Canada the more it seems like two countries with in one.

Quebec and then the rest of the country.

The process that is being brought up with regards to Heathrow is almost identical to what DTW would have to do if they wanted to build another runway according to NEPA. Whenever there is a government project in the US, it has to comply with NEPA standards to protect the environment in almost any way. This includes Environmental Impact Statements that address the concerns of the air, water, and animals [[Through the CAA, CWA, and ESA) . Any citizen can invoke a citizen suit if they believe NEPA is not being followed.

So essentially, nothing out of the ordinary.

[Richard]

The process that is being brought up with regards to Heathrow is almost identical to what DTW would have to do if they wanted to build another runway according to NEPA. Whenever there is a government project in the US, it has to comply with NEPA standards to protect the environment in almost any way. This includes Environmental Impact Statements that address the concerns of the air, water, and animals [[Through the CAA, CWA, and ESA) . Any citizen can invoke a citizen suit if they believe NEPA is not being followed.

So essentially, nothing out of the ordinary.

Ever sense the 70s airports have had to deal with noise,environmental issues and every airport has to go through the same role of dealing with supporters and non supporters.

You can even Take noise abatement to the next step where the airport authority will help and pay to sound proof your house.

If one reads the link provided and looks at the pictures of the protesters and the signs they are holding up,it has nothing to do with anything else but climate change agenda,they used the existing laws to pitch climate change and has little to do with the environment.

It is London a city that tries to control the rest of the country,and the rest of the country wishes it would just go away.

Just like Quebec in Canada or California in the United States.

They get a bunch of people together and try to force the rest of the countries to comply.

look at the big picture and context.

[JonWylie]

Ever sense the 70s airports have had to deal with noise,environmental issues and every airport has to go through the same role of dealing with supporters and non supporters.

You can even Take noise abatement to the next step where the airport authority will help and pay to sound proof your house.

If one reads the link provided and looks at the pictures of the protesters and the signs they are holding up,it has nothing to do with anything else but climate change agenda,they used the existing laws to pitch climate change and has little to do with the environment.

It is London a city that tries to control the rest of the country,and the rest of the country wishes it would just go away.

Just like Quebec in Canada or California in the United States.

They get a bunch of people together and try to force the rest of the countries to comply.

look at the big picture and context.

yeah nothing you said is relevant to what I stated. Nothing to see here. Environmental laws and regulations working as they should

[Richard]

yeah nothing you said is relevant to what I stated. Nothing to see here. Environmental laws and regulations working as they should

Yea nothing you said indicates that you opened the link,if the environmental laws and regulations are working as they should.

Why do protesters need to carry Climate Emergency signs?

None of them say protect the environment or keep the regulations.

It’s a climate emergency because a third runway brings more planes and planes burn fuel.Kinda like AOCs farting cows drama.

If they really cared about the environment, they would not be using plastic non recyclable signs that would end up in the waterways and oceans.

If one actually reads the link they would see this first paragraph

Heathrow's £14bn plan for a third runway must go back to the drawing board in a massive victory for green groups over climate change.

Then If one reads the link further

This is - specifically - because bungling Transport Secretary Chris Grayling didn't take into account the Paris Agreement on climate change when he drew up the NPS.


Which goes exactly back to the context of my original post where the Paris agreement on climate change dictates what a country can and can not do.

Detroit air port sees an increase in flights,climate change activists petition the government saying they are in violation of the Paris agreement.

Detroit airport must then scale back on the acceptance of flights because the extra planes are bad for climate change.

That was the scenario,but no longer because we are out of the Paris agreement.

You guys must really enjoy the thoughts of somebody in Europe telling you what is economically best for your city.

Guaranteed those protesters that cannot stand fossil fuel airplanes will have no problem jumping on one if they need to get somewhere.

[JonWylie]

Yea nothing you said indicates that you opened the link,if the environmental laws and regulations are working as they should.

Why do protesters need to carry Climate Emergency signs?

None of them say protect the environment or keep the regulations.

It’s a climate emergency because a third runway brings more planes and planes burn fuel.Kinda like AOCs farting cows drama.

If they really cared about the environment, they would not be using plastic non recyclable signs that would end up in the waterways and oceans.

If one actually reads the link they would see this first paragraph

Heathrow's £14bn plan for a third runway must go back to the drawing board in a massive victory for green groups over climate change.

Then If one reads the link further

This is - specifically - because bungling Transport Secretary Chris Grayling didn't take into account the Paris Agreement on climate change when he drew up the NPS.


Which goes exactly back to the context of my original post where the Paris agreement on climate change dictates what a country can and can not do.

Detroit air port sees an increase in flights,climate change activists petition the government saying they are in violation of the Paris agreement.

Detroit airport must then scale back on the acceptance of flights because the extra planes are bad for climate change.

That was the scenario,but no longer because we are out of the Paris agreement.

You guys must really enjoy the thoughts of somebody in Europe telling you what is economically best for your city.

Guaranteed those protesters that cannot stand fossil fuel airplanes will have no problem jumping on one if they need to get somewhere.

You seem really hung up on the picture of people with signs about a climate emergency but show no understanding of how environmental or agency law works here or abroad. Anyone in the US could sue an airport trying to expand it's runway if they felt relevant NEPA factors weren't taken into account. It's happened hundreds of times with various government or quasi-government projects. That's how these things work.

[Honky Tonk]

Anyone in the US could sue an airport trying to expand it's runway if they felt relevant NEPA factors weren't taken into account. It's happened hundreds of times with various government or quasi-government projects. That's how these things work.

You're absolutely correct! All it requires is that you have more money for better lawyers then the airports and developers.

[Richard]

You seem really hung up on the picture of people with signs about a climate emergency but show no understanding of how environmental or agency law works here or abroad. Anyone in the US could sue an airport trying to expand it's runway if they felt relevant NEPA factors weren't taken into account. It's happened hundreds of times with various government or quasi-government projects. That's how these things work.

What you keep trying to do is merge long standing state and federal protections and restrictions into the Paris agreement as if they are the same.

They are not.

The Paris agreement was signed in 2015 and was subject to take effect 2020.

Granted if they had expanded the runway 1 year ago they would have only been subject to their country wide regulations,with the Paris agreement kicking in they are also subject to conditions set by the agreement.

You keep glossing over the reason they had grounds for the suit was because of the Paris agreement,you do not see the protesters with signs of save the environment,they are displaying climate emergency signs.

Once again under the Paris agreement if Detroit wanted to add another runway or any other city for that matter,not only would they have to do so under long standing regulations,as you have pointed out,they would also have to meet the standards set forth and be approved by the Paris agreement.

It has zero to do with local impact or state and federal regulations,the Paris agreement is about countries lowering the carbon footprint,more runways equal more airplanes equal a larger carbon footprint over a given area.

Under the Paris agreement countries agreed to lower the carbon footprint by increasing the removal of anything fossil fuel related,cars,power plants,lawn mowers etc.

Bloomberg put in over $500 million into shutting down all the remaining coal fired power plants in the United States by 2030,works out pretty good if you are invested in alternative energy along with the other politicians that are pushing a green future.

They do not care about the environment,but they do care about collecting the green while they eliminate the competition.

Fuel prices for heating our homes,providing the electricity etc. have been reasonably cheap comparably,that is because there were options,what happens when all the options are removed from the table and you are told this is your only option? What choice do you have at that point?

Outside of falling out of the sky,the reason Boeing’s new plane was so hated is because it was 30% more fuel efficient and had a high reduction of noise when compared to existing aircraft.

It became popular really fast because it surpassed current airport noise restrictions.

But hey a quiet fuel efficient airplane kinda throws a wrench into the whole noisy fuel spitting nasty planes ruining the environment and causing climate change.

[JonWylie]

What you keep trying to do is merge long standing state and federal protections and restrictions into the Paris agreement as if they are the same.

They are not.

The Paris agreement was signed in 2015 and was subject to take effect 2020.

Granted if they had expanded the runway 1 year ago they would have only been subject to their country wide regulations,with the Paris agreement kicking in they are also subject to conditions set by the agreement.

You keep glossing over the reason they had grounds for the suit was because of the Paris agreement,you do not see the protesters with signs of save the environment,they are displaying climate emergency signs.

Once again under the Paris agreement if Detroit wanted to add another runway or any other city for that matter,not only would they have to do so under long standing regulations,as you have pointed out,they would also have to meet the standards set forth and be approved by the Paris agreement.

It has zero to do with local impact or state and federal regulations,the Paris agreement is about countries lowering the carbon footprint,more runways equal more airplanes equal a larger carbon footprint over a given area.

Under the Paris agreement countries agreed to lower the carbon footprint by increasing the removal of anything fossil fuel related,cars,power plants,lawn mowers etc.

Bloomberg put in over $500 million into shutting down all the remaining coal fired power plants in the United States by 2030,works out pretty good if you are invested in alternative energy along with the other politicians that are pushing a green future.

They do not care about the environment,but they do care about collecting the green while they eliminate the competition.

Outside of falling out of the sky,the reason Boeing’s new plane was so hated is because it was 30% more fuel efficient and had a high reduction of noise when compared to existing aircraft.

It became popular really fast because it surpassed current airport noise restrictions.

But hey a quiet fuel efficient airplane kinda throws a wrench into the whole noisy fuel spitting nasty planes ruining the environment and causing climate change.

The UK passed a law that mirrors parts of the Paris agreement and that is what the suit is being brought on. The UK passed the Climate Change Act of 2008. So again, not any different than NEPA or any other environmental law in the US that outlines goals on climate and environment. As far as I know, there's no case law that supports the Paris agreement is binding precedent that one can sue a government over, if that was the case, you'd have hundreds of suits in the US citing it before we withdrew.

[Richard]

The UK passed a law that mirrors parts of the Paris agreement and that is what the suit is being brought on. The UK passed the Climate Change Act of 2008. So again, not any different than NEPA or any other environmental law in the US that outlines goals on climate and environment. As far as I know, there's no case law that supports the Paris agreement is binding precedent that one can sue a government over, if that was the case, you'd have hundreds of suits in the US citing it before we withdrew.

I am going to go out on a limb and say you still have not read the link provided.

Three top judges said the National Policy Statement was drawn up unlawfully.
This is - specifically - because bungling Transport Secretary Chris Grayling didn't take into account the Paris Agreement on climate change when he drew up the NPS.

They brought four separate 'judicial reviews', claiming the proper legal processes weren't followed when the NPS was drawn up and voted on by MPs in 2018.


The UN's Paris Agreement, which came into force in November 2016, commits signatories to tackling climate change by taking measures to limit global warming to well below 2C.
Other matters brought by the campaigners - including on habitats - did not succeed in court.


That tells you

A: UK climate change act as referenced was established in 2018 and not 2008 as you posted.

B: The case was brought on because of the failure to include the Paris climate change agreement

C: The Paris agreement was formed in 2015,the UK set policy in 2018 the deadline set by the Paris agreement for countries to comply was 2020.

This case specifically revolves around the Paris agreement and the legal ramifications if a country does not abide to it.

It has nothing to do with local,state,or federal or even per country regulations surrounding an airport expansion.

As one can clearly see by reading the link provided all other issues did not succeed in court.

This will determine case law in the future in regards to an individual countries not following the Paris agreement.

As you can see,if you read the link,it is being played out in the courts now.

We pulled out of the agreement,they would not be able to go back retroactive in this country to bring suit,if it was still in effect then this would be the case that would determine future suits against the government.

This is the first case that has been brought up challenging a government adherence to the Paris agreement.

Under the Paris agreement,you would not even be able to build a house in the city of Detroit let alone a skyscraper without adherence to the Paris agreement and carbon footprint requirements.

The actual airport runway in this case is irrelevant, it is about the ability to hold the government responsible to the Paris agreement.

It would have devastated cities in this country that were rebuilding and did not have the existing stock that could have been grandfathered in,cities like Detroit would have been dead in the water if the costs of compliance were doubled while building new.

Not so bad in cities that are already built out to the maximum,like London or NYC.

What happens when you double the cost of construction? It gets passed down to the consumer which raises the costs of living in the city.

[rb336]

A: UK climate change act was established in 2018 and not 2008 as you posted.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/27/contents

That tells you

Please try to become intelligent at some point in your life.

[Richard]

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/27/contents



Please try to become intelligent at some point in your life.

As usual you have a reading comprehension problem while being quick to question others intelligence.

From the very link that YOU provided

Climate Change Act 2008 is up to date with all changes known to be in force on or before 02 March 2020. There are changes that may be brought into force at a future date.


That little sentence that reads “ There are changes that may be brought into force at a future date”

The reference changes they are referring to are the changes that happened in the vote by the NPS in 2018 as posted in the link that was already provided.

You know,the very reason the suit was brought on because the changes in 2018 omitted the Paris agreement revisions.

Well I say,you know,but apparently not.

If they were following the climate change act of 2008 and it was still active the case could be made that they had until 2050 to comply so it would not apply to the current runway expansion.

What part about the only thing that has a basis of a court case is the exemption of the Paris agreement,every thing else disputed even if the 2008 laws were still in place,the courts ruled. that it was in compliance,are you confused about?.

That is what the whole Paris agreement was about.

It is a climate change emergency so the guidelines were changed from
2050 to 2020,setting the goal post back 30 years because we all would have been dead as a world by 2050.

[bust]

rb336 and JonWylie, why bother?
It's an endless rabbit hole to correct all his misrepresentations of fact.
This thread was never better than before it received a reply, and hogwash was a good description for it already then.
May it die the quick death it deserves.

[Richard]

rb336 and JonWylie, why bother?
It's an endless rabbit hole to correct all his misrepresentations of fact.
This thread was never better than before it received a reply, and hogwash was a good description for it already then.
May it die the quick death it deserves.

Simple solution show me where I have misrepresented facts as provided in the link that nobody even bother to read.

Otherwise you popped in to talk a bunch of crap as usual making claims that you cannot back up.

Why the hell does anybody bring up a 2008 agreement when the link clearly states that it was revised in 2018 by vote which made the 2008 agreement null.

The guy did the exact thing Trump did,Trump publicly pulled the US from the Paris Agreement where as in the UK they effectively did the exact same thing by administration.

They just forgot to tell everybody about it,and now two years later it comes out.

Just because you cannot comprehend something you flip it around to how it is everybody else’s fault.

But you already established yourself as a troll so not much more can be expected of you.

[JonWylie]

Why the hell does anybody bring up a 2008 agreement when the link clearly states that it was revised in 2018 by vote which made the 2008 agreement null.

Bust is right, I really don't want this to go on any longer because it's pointless, but I just have to set the record straight on this.

Nowhere does it say that a 2018 act superseeded a 2008 act. The NPS that was past in 2018, the National Policy Statement, which allowed for the expansion of the airport, was passed without taking into consideration the 2008 Act on Climate. This 2008 Act set out climate goals while also allowing for future goals to be put in place. Here, the challengers are saying that the 2018 NPS does not follow the 2008 Act regarding climate because, among other things, it does not follow the goals that the UK agreed to meet under the Paris Agreement.

[Richard]

Like roads an airport expansion takes years to implement.

The general timeline in the EU at the time of the 2008 climate change policies was implementing by 2050

The studies were completed and submitted by the airport and the Uk department of transportation were completed and submitted on December 9 2015



Carbon
83.No substantial gaps in the evidence base have been identified. The forecasts are generated to reflect the uncertainty over future carbon policy, with the Commission generating carbon-traded and carbon-capped forecasts based on advice from the Committee on Climate Change. The Department is satisfied that the Commission’s scenarios are an appropriate approach to reflect this uncertainty and its impact on the case for capacity expansion.

https://assets.publishing.service.go...nal-report.pdf

Even the NPS study found it in compliance with the 2008 climate change standards based on the 2050 guideline.

Pay attention to the dates.

Everything was in compliance with the 2008 guidelines and approved and submitted by.

December 9 2015

The Paris climate change was approved on

December 12 2015

What changed was the timeline from the 2008 goals of 2050 to 2030

Which says the 2008 agreement guidelines would no longer be in effect because the level of carbon reductions based on the 2050 reductions have now changed by moving the calendar back to 2030.

Everything was in compliance up until the Paris signing on December 12 2015.

In order to comply with the new standards they would have had to go back and completely redo the entire runways expansion project which would have added years.

That is their argument.

Although the expansion compliance was acceptable on December 9 2015 It is no longer acceptable because 3 days later the Paris agreement was signed making it no longer in compliance.

They are saying that the NPS was in default because it did not comply with the advanced timeline brought forward by the Paris agreement,even though I was in compliance before that.

[Richard]

Did you know that the carbon footprint that is used to create just the battery for electric cars before even it is driven is equal to driving a gasoline powered car 100,000 km?

The recycling standards for batteries was enacted before lithium batteries became in wide use,so are exempt from recycling.

[rb336]

Just some facts...
EVs are responsible for considerably lower emissions over their lifetime For batteries manufactured in countries with coal-intensive electricity generation, the benefits of EVs are smaller and they can have similar lifetime emissions to the most efficient conventional vehicles – such as hybrid-electric models.

However, as countries de-carbonize electricity generation to meet their climate targets, driving emissions will fall for existing EVs and manufacturing emissions will fall for new EVs.

The lifetime emissions per mile of driving a Nissan Leaf EV were about three times lower than for the average conventional car, even before accounting for the falling carbon intensity of electricity generation during the car’s lifetime.

Comparisons between electric vehicles and conventional vehicles are complex. They depend on the size of the vehicles, the accuracy of the fuel-economy estimates used, how electricity emissions are calculated, what driving patterns are assumed, and even the weather in regions where the vehicles are used. There is no single estimate that applies everywhere.

[Richard]

While I would agree that EVs are a long term gamble as it stands now it is a shell game.

The practices of mining materials that were fought against in this country due to long term environmental impacts have just been moved overseas.

Its a Shell game of lowering co in cities and increasing them elsewhere.

A majority of the lithium for the batteries come from the lithium triangle out of the Andes mountains of Argentina,Brazil and Chile.

Under the salt flats that have been there for 10,000 years they suck the brine out,inject that brine With caustic chemicals and then use 80,000 gallons of fresh water per kilo,that solution is then poured into massive concrete retaining ponds.

The sun evaporates the solution while the winds pick up the caustic ingredients scattering them into the wind,the indigenous people of over 100,000 that have been farming there for decades are getting killed in the process,thier livestock are literally going blind while in the fields.

We stopped strip mining in the US because of the devastation it causes to the environment but yet China is strip mining 10s of thousands of acres and having the same impact as the deforestation everybody opposes.

There are 6 major components of minerals used in the manufacturing process of fossil fuel burning cars compared to the 18 used in the manufacturing process of EVs.

A majority of the components used in the manufacturing process of EVs use rare earth materials.

That is a limited resource controlled by a few and the process to extract those minerals has a more devastating impact on the environment and CO levels then the current fossil fuel vehicles.

As it stands now there are not enough rare earth minerals to supply the demand of complete conversion over to EVs long term,but that is the target.

Those minerals are not only being used in demand for EVs,they are used in everything electronic that we touch,even down to the television that we watch.

We need to be careful about what we are doing while setting hard and fast goals while leaving no other options because as it stands now we are forcing ourselves into a corner that we will not be able to back out of.