To make a Tesla is not as eco-friendly as one wants people to think. Photo: REUTERS/Lucy Nicholson
annonse
annonse

For several years now, we have had green EL certificates, CO2 charges, climatic quotas and environmental charges that one could be green from less. Experts state that this will save the globe, and we will reduce the climatic emissions if we reach the magic number of 1,5 degrees figured out by the UN Climatic Panel. One would have to thoroughly search for a greater cheat!

Let me first say, however, clearly our fossil consumption pollutes; there is no doubt whatsoever about that. Also no one denies that it is harmful.

But let us start with the electricity that you and I get from the socket at home. We buy it from a supplier, and he is obliged to collect environmental charges, a so-called «green energy». We buy our electricity from a supplier who produces it either from wind or water. For this, we pay at great expense with each and every electricity bill. Already at this point, however, something does not seem quite right.

annonse

You and I are not directly connected to the wind turbine on some mountain somewhere. Neither is you connected to the water power plant where you live. You get the electricity that is accessible on the energy network, whether it comes from a German coal power plant or a Swedish nuclear reactor. It is not possible to identify who produces the electrons we consume when we use our coffee maker. That’s certainly some clever way to tax us consumers!

Then there are EL cars, assumedly so environment friendly. They work solely on electricity. Ehm; is that correct? The production of the batteries in an average EL car produces as much CO2 as driving a diesel car; between 150.000 and 200.000 km. With an annual mileage of 20m000 km we are talking about seven or eight years of driving the diesel car before you have polluted as much as the EL car even before it is on the road. And if you were so unlucky as to get trouble with the battery during the seven or eight years and must replace it, you talk about fourteen or sixteen years before they emit the same amount of CO2.

Now, ho drives about in a sixteen-year-old EL car? Nobody does! They are long since destroyed. Outdated technology. Perhaps the batteries may be recirculated and utilised for other purposes. At present, there is no such arrangement that handles this in a proper way.

annonse

I myself drive about in an eighteen-year-old petrol gear chugging on old obstinacy. It is,  however, performing; takes me from A to B when necessary. And the CO2 mark it leaves behind is long since paid with environment charges on the petrol.

Another foolish charge

Environment charges on petrol. The petrol does not becomes more eco-friendly with us paying 2 Nkr more per litre. This charge is rooted in a completely foolish system of charges. We do not drive any less because of that charge. We use our cars for what it is needed.

While we out here in the wilds bask in the glory of green technology, green electricity, and sustainable development, we pollute just as much on the other side of the globe. But that which we do not see will not damage the environment, will it?

In the wind turbines, the EL cars, and the EL bicycles, something  is used that is called Neodymium. It is an essential element for the production of these green cars, wind turbines, and bicycles.

This is how it looks in the wake of extracting Neodymium, an essential mineral in EL cars and wind turbines. The black mud is radioactive and full from acid. The soil is spoiled for hundreds of years. The magnet in one single wind turbine contains 400–1.000 kg Neodymium, something that leaves several tons of mud.

One single EL car contains 11 to 20 kg, and a bicycle about 0,1 kg. In addition to Neodymium, these products contain several other rare earthen metals, whose extraction is also damaging to the environment.

annonse

This environmental crime is financed by you and me through charges on our pure electricity and through subsidies of EL cars and bicycles. The reason is that some politicians are convinced that four molecules per 10.000 instead of three of the life-giving, invisible, and smell-less gas, CO2, poses a danger to our climate.

That is perhaps worth thinking about the next time you listen to MDG-Lan, Skei Grande, or other politicians talk about the climate and the wonderful «green» shift. Yes, maybe it is time to reconsider the effect of the «green» technology. It is not as green as our politicians postulate.

Translated to English by Lars Hoem

Tegn abonnement eller støtt oss på andre måter hvis du ønsker at Resett skal bestå som en motvekt til de etablerte og statsstøttede mediene i Norge.

Vipps 124526
Bankkonto 1503.94.12826
SMS “Resett” (200,- en gang) til 2474

annonse
Utskriftsvennlig versjon Utskriftsvennlig versjon