Whether We Like It Or Not, Climate Edicts Will Be Forced Upon Us

I own shares in the second largest mining company in Australia, Fortescue Metals Group (FMG), with a capitalization of $65 billion. Yesterday, the company came out with its annual general report. The report was filled with an emphasis on being “green”. There was the Climate Change Report and the Sustainability Report. They put out their “Real Zero” statement to show how environmentally conscious the company is.

Two interesting things are evident. Look at the fourth paragraph. "Fortescue will no longer buy voluntary carbon offsets unless required by law, as offsets have been shown to be troubled by extensive concerns about quality…" So the admission is that carbon credits have been a rort. Are we to believe that other green policies are any better?

The company also plans to totally eliminate fossil fuels. I see, so FMG is one of the leading producers of iron ore which is used to make steel. Steel is made in blast furnaces which use a considerable amount of energy. I guess they're going to be powered by solar panels and wind turbines?

Everyone is on board the climate change bandwagon. Every natural event, whether it's the Maui fires, a hurricane, tornado or new virus; it's climate change. Well all is not what it seems to be.

Covexit, in his substack article, EV Range, Anxiety & More… makes the following salient points in comparing EVs to internal combustion engines.

"The example we took is the Volkswagen Golf 8 2.0 TDI 115HP which is announced at a 3.5 litres /100 km consumption of diesel. Even if we add 15% for "real world" driving conditions, the consumption of 4 litres/100 km remains very low.

This highly efficient diesel car will have an official MPG of 67, which amounts to 58 MPG with the 15% adjustment. With a usable tank volume of 45 liters, this means a range of over 1000 km, or 1125 km to be more precise.

So the benchmark to evaluate EV ranges should not be the best range among EVs but rather how an already existing alternative is doing.

So let's assume 1000 km, or 620 miles, to be our benchmark for a good decent range for a passenger vehicle. If you achieve a higher range, it's progress.

If the range of an EV is lower, compared to an ICE vehicle, it's NOT progress. It's regression, it's decline, it's going backward."

So how did the electric vehicles do?

"The CarNow channel recently, compared the actual range of 6 electric vehicles. The achieved ranges varied from 203 to 285 miles, i.e. in km (1 mile = 1.609 km) from 326 to 458 km.

"The worst range is about one third of our reference vehicle with 1000 km / 621 miles diesel vehicle." And the best is still less than half the range of our reference vehicle. Let that sink in. The ranges achieved by EVs are nowhere near what can easily be achieved by an ICE powered vehicle. Nowhere near."

Mark P. Mills, a faculty fellow at Northwestern University's engineering school and a partner in Montrose Lane, an energy-tech venture fund, wrote the following detailed look at electric vehicles.

Electric Vehicles For Everyone? The Impossible Dream

Here are a couple of interesting points he makes:

"In November 2022, Consumer Reports' annual reliability survey found that of the 11 EV models included, seven rated below average for all cars. Similarly, a UK survey found that during the first several years of ownership, EV owners experienced a 50% higher rate of problems, compared with conventional cars. Notably, problems with software topped the list of quality-control issues for EVs, a feature that is more complex than in an ICE vehicle. Lower reliability invariably shows up somewhere in the overall economics for consumers, even if absorbed by automakers in warranties. To be sure, time will bring reliability equivalence for EVs. One recent three-year study found that overall maintenance and repair costs revealed only "a tiny difference." Another study, from Car and Driver, found a slightly lower EV maintenance cost. But so far, real-world experience doesn't seem like a slam-dunk for radically superior EV reliability."

"The Bottom Line: 43 Tons of Estimated Emissions Rises to 67 Tons

The realistic potential of 43 tons of upstream emissions combined with operating realities of 24 tons of downstream emissions (over a vehicle lifetime) yields a total of 67 tons of EV CO2. This is 15% more than the 59-ton baseline for a comparable gasoline-fueled SUV. Or, assume instead that a consumer purchases an ICE car with 30% better fuel efficiency; that vehicle's lifetime CO2 emissions drop to 40 tons, which is ~27 tons, or 50% less than many possible EV scenarios."

So, the upstream emissions refer to the amount of energy input needed for mining all the minerals used in those large car batteries along with the refining processes. All emit carbon dioxide. Also, the larger the vehicle, the heavier the battery necessary to run the car. In addition, batteries are impacted much more than conventional fuels by cold temperatures. Then there is the problem of disposal of the batteries, which are highly costly and can't be recycled at this point in time. 

It also costs money to recharge the EV. With standard household current, you're looking at 6-8 hours and with high-speed chargers, you're still looking at recharge times of 30-60 minutes, depending on how much charge is left.

Something else I learned––not being the owner of an EV––is that it's unwise to charge beyond 80% as the charging time from 10%-80% is the same as from 80%-100%. A feature of lithium batteries is that charging to 100% degrades the battery much faster. Imagine if your gasoline-powered engine can only be filled to 80%. It appears that everything is not what it seems with EVs.

My wife and I have often wondered how EVs would work in our state when you leave the city. It's a pretty empty place.

Western Australia is a massive state at 2,527,013 square km (976,790 mi ). California is 163,696 square miles, making Western Australia six times bigger but having only 2.8 million people. How will that work with areas of vast distances and low population density? What if you run out of charge? Someone would have to come and tow you on a flatbed truck to the nearest charging station, which could be a few hundred miles away.

However, facts don't seem to matter these days. If you go off the plan and oppose the concept of catastrophic climate change, you are considered a member of a cult. 

Look at what is being planned.

Biden urged to declare climate emergency: What powers would it grant him?

Of course, this was all predictable. It is easy to go from the Covid Emergency Authorization to a Climate Emergency Authorization. If you don't attend the party, all the actors will denigrate and shame you. See how John Kerry recently referred to climate change "deniers".

John Kerry Appears to Label People Who Do Not Believe in Climate Change Cult Members

No rational discussion is allowed. If you oppose the Covid vaccines, you're considered a member of an extremist cult. Heaven forbid that you want to exert some autonomy over your own body. They are literally using the Nazi playbook, not concerning race, but as someone who is a free-thinking person. In Germany, the Jews were the "other", the ones to be excluded from society. If you oppose a vaccine or are a catastrophic climate denier today, you are the modern-day "other".

We really don't stand a chance. They will enforce their dictates upon us. One noticeable effect of forcing people into EVs will be limiting travel. You will lose your ability to go on long road trips. I foresee that, eventually, planes will go the same way. There will be a push to eliminate jet fuel, making travel––already a costly endeavour––out of reach for anyone but the wealthy. 

This is all part of the New World Order, and it's a dark one. These people are serious. The Covid virus was the 2020 hysteria. Now, CO2 is the bogeyman. We have to fight this because the alternative is submission. Our response in the face of Covid tyranny could inspire more confidence. As long as people are comfortable, they are happy to go along to get along. This will not get the job done.