Just like every other trivial issue it will blown up until it is a major crisis.

I do not understand that you think that everyone having a new car made for them does not harm the environment. About 30% of an ICE car's pollution is from the manufacture and 50% of an EV. If you run an ICE on ethanol it means that the ICE car does far less damage to the environment. The cost to the environment will not be favourable even if we continued to use fossil fuels but the cost to the environment is not good with EVs due to their short lifespan yet ICE last much longer. We can agree that it is time to progress from fossil fuels even though we will argue about the extent of the problem but EVs are just another dead end technology. VW, Audi etc. are going with ethanol, hardly niche if you get out, whereas Toyota believe the future is hydrogen (water as exhaust). You are entitled to your opinion but my point is that it is just an opinion and the experts do not agree on the best way forward.

OK, now which do you think is better for the environment? A) Everyone buying a new electric car B) People converting their current car to ethanol - Why are we being forced to buy a new car when it will do far more harm than good?

> You can go visit Chernobyl right now. Yes but there are many areas which you are not allowed to go near. The idea of people living near is deceptive. They can tell which areas are relatively safe and there are people there but a mile down the road you would not be able to dig a foot deep hole and live to see your next birthday because the ground is simply a covering over a highly irradiated subsoil which must not be disturbed or the wind would spread the radiation.

Although current nuclear is the most expensive when you consider the total cost from start to finish the average person only considers the cost of a running nuclear plant producing his watt of electricity and that blinkered view sees nuclear as cheap, just like the electric car is great whilst it bumbles down the road but the total cost is horrific. Wind is not perfect but it is better but the short lifespan and pollution (massive grp structure with a short lifespan) is an issue.

Did as you say and am interested that you consider Russia a rich country or Kazakhstan...

If that were true they would not need to ban ICEs as they would naturally stop being bought. I totally accept that for many people EVs are the best thing since sliced bread but I do not accept that legislation should force their adoption. The people of Norway do not want to be forced to change even though many wish to change. Most of the headlines come from cities where a large section of the population live but those people out in the countryside live very different lives. City infrastruction should be electrified and trams and EV delivery trucks are essential but there are many cases outside the cities where that is not the case.

I do understand that this is in effect a religion and reality is forbidden in any discussion but I spent December and January in Sweden and while I was there I noticed that there were no EVs. I spoke to the locals and was told, very matter of fact, that EVs do not work in the cold weather. It was -27 and if you have your phone in your jacket pocket it dies after about 15 minutes. An EV has its battery under the floor so the effect is the same. I did find the difference between what the media tells me and the reality I saw shocking but not surprising given all the other rubbish I get like the idea that they create less pollution during manufacture when the battery alone creates more pollution on its own than an ICE car that lasts several times as long or the fact that they are only compared to petrol or diesel as if there are no other choices. It is a religion rather than a rational option which it would be a good option. EVs are not bad but they are not the right choice for everyone so why are they being forced on us when they are not always better unless you make out that there is no other option. In Sweden every gas station had ethanol and biodiesel avaiable so you did not have to buy an EV to get away from fossil fuel.

The problem is that EVs use twice as much coal etc. during production than ICEs which has as great an effect on the environment as the electricity production required to run the things. Yes, we can cover Australia with solar panels made from the fossil fuels that we have not used in the cars but they have a very short lifespan (just like EVs) and still end up polluting the planet and they do not work as well but make certain people a lot of more money so it is good. Toyota and the Germans are currently dropping EVs because they believe that they will be a short blip in the market with the ICE continuing with biofuels in most economies and Toyota banking on hydrogen with water as an exhaust and all the ease of use as other fuels. Most of this gets down to the propaganda that so many people follow. BLM, LBGTQwhatever, Covid face nappies etc. rather than calm and rational objective research. EVs do not work in many markets but they are being pushed on all of us regardless of whether they work in our situation or not just as other politics are pushed on all of us regardless of if it is relevant. EVs are great and do have a place but they are not an answer and it is simply politics that means we are being forced to own one. The former UK PM was pushing EVs but he was fully aware that they are unsuitable for a lot of UK users but he simply wanted a reason to build 30 new nuclear power stations which have grown in acceptability now people have started to forget Fukishima, Chernobyl etc. and the expense of looking after the waste for 10,000 years and therefore cause far more pollution. We are on the cusp of greater things but rather than wait the leaders want everyone to buy a new expensive car to replace their working car and will have to be replaced with a new working car in 10 years. This is harming the economy not improving it.

And you feel superior because although your car created twice as much pollution during manufacture at that moment your car was producing less. Why are we being forced to replace openly polluting cars with cars that produce more pollution yet it is hidden. That diesel driver may have been burning biodiesel and his car would have been half as polluting as your evil EV.

I would like to hear you justify that as I cannot see it in any way. Hydrogen is already here although small scale but covers all bases. Refuel in less than a minute and water as an exhaust. EVs are merely a novelty item that people will regret paying so much on.

It is amazing that people are still falling for this marketting scam. An EV is seldom more environmentally clean that a fossil fuel car and costs far more. There is seldom an advantage to the user although I can see advantages to some users and do not advocate banning them. The TCO is a lot more on average than a normal car. I do think that they are better in cities but for most people a switch to biofuel would be help the environment far more. In a city you need somewhere to charge it so they are not always a good idea there. The problem is that people can only think of an EV driving along the road rather that the total life of the vehicle. The EV creates twice as much pollution during manufacture and over the next 10 years an fossil fuel car will need to cover 15,000 miles a year to catch up. So after 10 years the two are generally at parity but the EV is at the end of its battery life (and worth less than the cost of a new battery) whereas the fossil fuel car still has a long life ahead. Now consider if instead of burning diesel or petrol you burn biodiesel or ethanol like many do in Europe, half the production pollution and none of the running pollution as well as much cheaper TCO thanks to the longer life. I cannot see why we are being forced to see EV as anything but a novelty item.

We still have plenty for you to play with at Chernbyl, Fukishima etc. Do not worry though, this is why we are getting so much stupid propaganda about how wonderful EVs are without bothering to explain that they will require far more electricity that we can produce if everyone switches over and we will have to build hundreds of nuclear power stations and with them the ability to make loads of lovely bombs. The planet is fucked, the moon cannot save us but we will have some lovely wars in the mean time.

I do not see any daring ruse here, just routine practices that we all do.

Taiwan are this projects best hope as they would like to build chips in the US but they do not want to face US regulation which are worse than Chinese. If China ramps up the threats to Taiwan the US will gain big time.