‘Climate alarmism’

Dear Editor:

RE: Reverse course (Dec. 9) and Our planet is dying (Dec. 16).

Considering all aspects of the electric vehicle (EV) as a “saviour” for our planet is important.

Emissions figures: a new EV has already caused 30,000 pounds of CO2 emissions, while for a new gas vehicle it is 14,000. After that the EV’s zero-emissions claims depend on how the electricity to recharge the battery is generated: if nuclear energy, great; if coal, oil, gas, not good. Think also of the emissions needed to rewire our grid to accommodate millions of cars plugging in at night.

Millions of EVs around the world lead to more crashes, more fires, more battery guts spilled into the environment. Will Third World countries even recycle them as it is dangerous and expensive?

  Put cobalt aside and look at lithium (the main element in EV batteries) extraction: it takes 500,000 gallons of water to extract 1 metric ton of lithium; any leakage (which happens regularly in China) kills fish and any animal that drinks it. In Chile, a mine there used up all the local water supply. Water has to be trucked in for the local people. How does that reduce emissions? Also, lithium extraction causes soil and air contamination along with mountains of discarded salt.

  The scary part of all this is that the countries where these materials are mined are afflicted by corruption, poor human rights and virtually no environmental standards. Do we want to depend on China, Africa and Latin America for our personal transportation?

I don’t think we should subsidize EVs or the fossil fuel industry; they have to sink or swim on their own.

It is patently ridiculous to say our planet is dying.

Our county and municipalities will no doubt be brainwashed by climate alarmism into buying EVs. We should understand that these super-expensive vehicles will not make much difference in reducing CO2. The only result will be higher taxes.

Jane Vandervliet,