“Electrifying vehicles adds yet more weight. Combustible, energy-dense petroleum is replaced by bulky batteries. And the rest of the vehicle must get heavier to provide the necessary structural support….. Why does this matter? First and foremost is safety.
“Heavier vehicles also generate more particulate pollution from tyre [tire] wear. They require more materials and energy to build and propel them, adding to emissions and energy use.”
An article in Nature from several years ago, underappreciated in today’s climate/energy debate, was recently emphasized in a social media post by Nick Molden, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Emissions Analytics, and Honorary Research Fellow, Imperial College London.
Molden commented:
… Continue ReadingA certain level of CO2 reduction is required just to offset the extra accident death risk from heavier BEV vehicles. Some major countries already reach this level, although the US and Germany do not.
“My strong first impression is that OMB Circular A-4 is particularly useful for more expediently advancing the administrative state’s ‘all of Government’ agenda to combat the ‘existential threat’ of anthropogenic global warming.”
Last Friday April 7th, The Hill reported:
The White House is [re]forming the country’s regulatory system, announcing a new executive order and guidance that experts say could be used to justify both more and stronger regulations. On Thursday, the White House released an executive order reducing the number of regulations that undergo a more rigorous White House review and promoting public participation from previously underrepresented groups at its Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
The Hill’s article, “White House Issues Reforms to the Regulatory Process,” quoted two experts from organizations that generally support the climate alarm/forced energy transformation side of the debate.…
Continue Reading“The IPCC reports have become ‘bumper sticker’ climate science—making a political statement while using the overall reputation of science to give authority to a politically manufactured consensus. With such explicit political advocacy, combined with misleading information, the IPCC risks losing its privileged position in international policy debates.” (- Doug Sheridan)
Doug Sheridan speaks truth to power on energy and climate issues. In a recent social media post, he brings attention to an article by Judith Curry in The Australian, “UN’s Climate Panic Is More Politics than Science,” that emphasized how the IPCC markets a warming extremism that is three times the size of its medium-case scenario. [1]
Sheridan’s summary follows:
Judith Curry writes in the Australian, all but few holdouts now recognize that the IPCC‘s worst-case RCP8.5 climate scenario never really deserved the attention it was given.…
Continue Reading