Surprise: Push For Electric Vehicles Causing Massive Deforestation And Environmental Damage

In what world does it make sense to destroy the environment to save the environment from ‘climate change’? But, this is the way climate cultists think

Electric Vehicle Push Is Sparking Massive Deforestation, Environmental Damage

electric vehicleA major nickel mine in a Philippines rainforest has continued to expand, mowing down acres of trees as global demand for minerals essential for electric vehicle manufacturing surges.

The Rio Tuba mine in the region of Palawan supplies an important mineral for electric vehicle batteries in Tesla and Toyota cars, but the mine is nearing an expansion that would cause it to grow from four square miles to 14 square miles, according to an NBC News investigation. The growth of the mine would cause massive deforestation of the land which environmentalists warn could destroy the area’s ecosystem.

Critics of the mine have suggested it could lead to an increased runoff of toxic waste into the environment, further harming the local wildlife, according to NBC News. (snip)

The expansion of the Rio Tuba mine and the subsequent destruction of nearly 9,000 acres of ancient rainforest documented by the NBC News report underscores the growing global demand for rare earth minerals which are essential for not only electric vehicles, but solar panels and wind turbines. Worldwide electric vehicle sales, which currently account for just 4% of new car purchases, are expected to surge to as much as 34% of total global sales by 2030, according to an International Energy Agency estimate.

All for cars that most people cannot afford and don’t take people very far. And seem to be mostly toys for rich people. Also, many of those pushing hard for this do not actually drive one. Biden is not cruising around in one. Nor is John Kerry. Nor the leaders in the UNIPCC. Nor most world leaders. Nor most members of Congress.

And, because of this push, we end up with

You can purchase a top end Honda Insight (well, not right now, good luck, supply chain) or Toyota Prius for less than that. A RAV4 hybrid and Honda CRV hybrid, bigger vehicles, can be bought for less. If EVs were in big demand, the two smartest automakers in the world would be rushing to make them. They aren’t.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

22 Responses to “Surprise: Push For Electric Vehicles Causing Massive Deforestation And Environmental Damage”

  1. JimS says:

    News flash for NBC: Nickel is not a Rare Earth element.

  2. Dana says:

    Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Thomas Massie (R-KY) both drive Teslas.

  3. Jl says:

    Where’s John?

  4. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    As has been pointed out time and again, all energy sources have benefits AND costs. Coal mining and transport, oil and gas drilling and transport, nuclear power, hydroelectric, solar, wind and wave power all have downsides. The transition to direct electrical power and battery storage also has drawbacks. It’s always a balance between benefit and risk.

    The burning of fossil fuels is causing the Earth to warm, an outcome judged by scientists to be unacceptable.

    • L.G.Brandon says:

      If the burning of fossil fuels was causing the earth to warm it would be proven beyond doubt by now. The fact that it is not is evidence of fraud. Or stupidity. Your choice.

      https://youtu.be/LmgVOoz-nJw

      Good old Elwood P. always wrong and always sure of himself. The perfect tragedy waiting to happen.

      • alanstorm says:

        Well, he does have that giant rabbit hanging around.

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        Brandon,

        Weren’t you calling for more civility, LOL.

        Scientific theories are not proven. That’s just basic science.

        Yes, the Earth is warming from we humans burning fossil fuels.

      • Zachriel says:

        L.G.Brandon: If the burning of fossil fuels was causing the earth to warm it would be proven beyond doubt by now.

        Science doesn’t provide the certainty of mathematical proof, but the scientific evidence strongly supports anthropogenic global warming. You could start with the physics of the greenhouse effect, without which the Earth would be a chilly -18°C rather than the balmy +15°C that it is.

        • William O'Neil says:

          Anthropogenic sources of CO2 make up a tiny percentage of greenhouse gasses, of which CO2 is a infinitesimally small portion. There is not enough data collected over the billions of years of earth history to make a determination that man has any more influence to greenhouse gasses than natural phenomenon. The suns activity contributes a vast amount of influence on the atmospheric warming trend. We as humans are the stewards of our environment, and have been cleaning up our act (well, the west has) for quite some time now. Global warming, or Climate Change, whatever the political class wants to call it, is mere snakeoil sold by quasi-scientists to effect change to their bank accounts to the tune of trillions of dollars. The world has a feeverrr, cmon maan!

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            Commenter: Anthropogenic sources of CO2 make up a tiny percentage of greenhouse gasses, of which CO2 is a infinitesimally small portion.

            Atmospheric CO2 has increased from 280 ppm to 420 ppm, with the increase proven to be from the burning of fossil fuels.

            There is no evidence that the Sun is responsible for the recent (in geological terms) increase in temperature.

            Calling the science behind global warming snakeoil is not much of an argument.

          • david7134 says:

            Again Jeff throws out his correlation. Correlation has no association with cause. It has been demoed that the rise in CO2 follows the rise in temp, further dissociating the cause from correlation.

            We could go on and on about cause of climate change, but this has been going on for 20,000 years and even though acolytes to the carbon religion claim a recent rapid rise, they have never ever proven man is responsible or that CO2 does anything.

            But, the thing that cliches the hoax is that none of the carbon religion will accept any resolution that does not assure the unilateral destruction of Europe and the U.S. Asia is the major pollutant of our world, but little real effort is made to rein in their pollution.

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            david or Porter ignores the overwhelming scientific evidence that CO2 added to the atmosphere by humans burning fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas) that was locked underground for a few hundred million years is causing the Earth to warm.

          • Zachriel says:

            William O’Neil: Anthropogenic sources of CO2 make up a tiny percentage of greenhouse gasses, of which CO2 is a infinitesimally small portion.

            Well, not an infinitely small portion, but about 1% of greenhouse gases. However, carbon dioxide represents about 20% of the greenhouse effect.

            William O’Neil: There is not enough data collected over the billions of years of earth history to make a determination that man has any more influence to greenhouse gasses than natural phenomenon.

            We know that the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide is anthropogenic. Not sure why you would argue otherwise.

            William O’Neil: The suns activity contributes a vast amount of influence on the atmospheric warming trend.

            You do realize we can accurately measure insolation? The current warming trend is not due to changes in insolation.

          • Zachriel says:

            david7134: Correlation has no association with cause.

            Well, that’s not necessarily the case. We presume you meant to say “Correlation doesn’t prove causation,” but there is often an association. There may even be causation.

            david7134: We could go on and on about cause of climate change, but this has been going on for 20,000 years

            What will those crazy climate scientists come up with next?!

            david7134: they have never ever proven man is responsible or that CO2 does anything.

            Science doesn’t provide the certainty of mathematical proof, but the scientific evidence strongly supports anthropogenic global warming. You could start with the physics of the greenhouse effect, without which the Earth would be a chilly -18°C rather than the balmy +15°C that it is.

        • david7134 says:

          I might note that Elwood or Jeff is here to destroy this site. He and a group of liberals decided over 10 years ago to attack various blogs in order to promote the carbon religion.

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            We might note that david or Porter makes stuff up constantly. If calling out bloggers for their outright lies, exaggerations and hate destroys various blogs it’s for the better.

    • alanstorm says:

      It’s always a balance between benefit and risk.

      Not to hear you tell it.

  5. […] the environment from ‘climate change’? But, this is the way climate cultists think,” writes Pirate’s Cove blogger “Willam […]

Bad Behavior has blocked 9768 access attempts in the last 7 days.