It’s always a sound idea to start at the beginning rather than in the middle — so let’s do that.
The whole push for “electrification” is based on a manufactured “necessity” — that of preventing what is styled “climate change.” The assertion itself is so vague as to be without substantive meaning. That’s a good beginning. How are we supposed to have any kind of intelligent debate when the baseline of the debate is so shiftily amorphous? It is certainly not — as the saying has it — “scientific.” That latter being defined by specificity — in order that the specifics can be examined, challenged, proved — or not.
It is telling — or at least, it ought to be so — that the claimed necessity for the extreme measures subsumed under the rubric of “electrification” is so … nonspecific.
But we all know what those who use the term as a club mean by it.
They mean the “climate” will “change” in some catastrophic way at some indeterminate point in the ever-elaborating future on account of the added carbon dioxide “emitted” by the combustion of hydrocarbon fuels, as from gas and diesel-powered vehicles most of all.
It is easy to illustrate the dubiousness of this assertion by simply pointing out the fact that the totality of carbon dioxide currently present in Earth’s atmosphere amounts to just 0.04 percent of the total. The totality of human-action-produced carbon dioxide is a fraction of that fraction.
It is telling that neither of these two facts are heard much in coverage of the “climate change” issue.
Probably because if people did hear, they might not believe.
Even if carbon dioxide was the great danger the asserters assert (and it’s not — in fact, it is essential and more would green the planet) the assertion that a fractional increase in the existing fractional total threatens a “catastrophe” is even more exaggerated and hysteric a claim than the ones issued about the “deadly virus” that didn’t kill 99.8-something percent of the population.
Not one of the predicted “catastrophes” they told us were imminent ever arrived. New York is not underwater — and neither is Florida — as it was asserted both would be by about 20 years ago. Not a single “The End is Nigh” assertion has ever come to pass — and yet the asserters continue to be issued a pass. It is worth noting here the eery similarity to the endlessly wrong predictions of similar “experts,” such as Drs. Anthony Fauci and Rochelle Walensky — who were also endlessly indulged by the same shrieking parrot “media” that sounds endless alarms about “climate change” — no matter how often the not-so-good doctors were proved to be wrong.
Can anyone point to a specific/provable harm they have suffered that has been caused by a fractional increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide? If they cannot, then why are we being pushed to accept onerous “solutions” to this supposed problem?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof — especially when these claims threaten actual harm and have already caused it.
It is fundamentally exactly like the business with “masks.” There ought to have been a burden of proof on the “maskers” before they got the power to “mask” anyone (other than themselves, of course). First, prove that the “virus” is a deadly threat in general — as opposed to a narrow threat to a specific group of people (i.e., the elderly, frail, and chronically/seriously sick). Then prove that — as they constantly insisted — “masks work.” Not in the mass-hysteria-fomenting sense. Prove that they serve as a meaningful barrier to infection and transmission.
If such proof is not forthcoming, then “masking” is fundamentally no different from hair-shirting, the medieval practice of donning a purposely uncomfortable garment to atone for one’s supposed sins.
Atoning for the supposed sins of burning hydrocarbon fuels by accepting impoverishment via “electrification” amounts to essentially the same thing. The electric vehicle being the vehicular equivalent of the medieval hairshirt in that it is a punishment. You self-flagellate by accepting endless waiting for a charge — and paying more for it, as well as for the electric car. All of it the necessary price paid to combat “climate change.” Those who pay it make a point of their willingness — their eagerness — to pay it, too.
Note the religious undertow.
Very much of a piece with the religious undertow that carried “masking” along, long after it became clear — to anyone interested in facts rather than assertions — that there was no evidence that “masks work,” except insofar as fomenting and carrying along mass hysteria. In fact, there was ample evidence they did not “work” — of a piece with the even-more-serious evidence accruing that the so-called “vaccines” do not “work,” either. At least not in terms of the original assertions that those who took them would not get and could not spread the virus.
There are two take-home points here that ought to matter to a facts-based society. The first being that assertions ought not to carry much weight and certainly no force, absent facts to support those assertions. It is both bizarre as well as dangerous to tolerate impositions based on assertions. Yet a majority wore “masks” solely on the basis of assertions that it was necessary.
Second, when assertions are proved to have been wrong, then those assertions must be dismissed — along with the credibility of those who made them. To continue to accept with polite deference the harangues of people who have been proved wrong over and over and over is bad enough. To accept your degradation and diminishment in the face of that is to show you deserve it.
Civilization cannot stand unless civilized people stand up to hysterics, the emotionally damaged, and those who manipulate them. Demanding proof before action not only matters — it is existentially necessary.
No matter how much it affronts their feelings.
READ MORE by Eric Peters: