Into the Night
Contributor
Blatant lie.Consumer Reports found in May that electrifying the entire U.S.*light-duty vehicle fleet by 2050 would require less than 1% growth per year in electricity generation. The report found that if 25% of the entire U.S.*passenger vehicle fleet was electric by 2032, the grid could meet that demand by only experiencing a 6% growth in electricity generation.*[/SIZE][/B]
Oh. The same idiot that cut back on California energy to the point that there is insufficient electrical power for California without importing most of it. Those lines are heavily overloaded too. It's only a matter of time before they both trip off line and California is left in total darkness. The WRIC will NOT sacrifice itself to save California.Lindsay Buckley, spokesperson for the California Energy Commission, said last year that EV charging accounted for less than 1% of the grid's total load during peak hours. By 2030, that number is expected to be around 5%, a*“small amount” of added demand.*[/SIZE][/B]
Fossils aren't used as fuel, so no subsidies. There are no subsidies for oil either.While highlighting electrification subsidies, the report ignores those subsidies that exist for fossil fuels.
A blatant lie. There are no subsidies for oil or fossils.According to an August study by the International Monetary Fund, fossil fuel subsidies surged to a record $7 trillion last year.*
You cannot scrap what doesn't exist.The IMF projected that if these existing fossil fuel subsidies were scrapped,
Define 'premature death'. What is this to do with scrapping non-existent 'subsidies'?1.6 million premature deaths could be prevented
There is no such thing.and the world could get a little closer to achieving its global warming targets.*
There are no subsidies for oil. Imposing 'corrective' taxes will only intensify the current economic depression and make driving EVs more expensive as well."If governments removed explicit subsidies and imposed corrective taxes, fuel prices would increase," the IMF wrote.
There is no such thing as 'environmental costs'. Buzzword fallacy."This would lead firms and households to consider environmental costs when making consumption and investment decisions.
Carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring gas. It is absolutely essential for life on Earth. Why would you want to cut it? The Church of Global Warming? CO2 has NO capability to warm the Earth.The result would be cutting global carbon-dioxide emissions significantly,
Carbon dioxide is odorless and colorless.cleaner air,
Carbon dioxide does not cause lung or heart disease.less lung and heart disease,
No, the federal government is already broke. It cannot tax it's way out of it's own predicament.and more fiscal space for governments."