reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Alex Nickel, a former policy adviser, reveals the issues with the Renewable Energy Act in Australia. Wind farms receive huge subsidies, costing the economy billions annually. These subsidies are funded by taxpayers through increased power bills. Wind turbines are inefficient, drawing power from the grid to operate and producing unreliable electricity. The turbines do not effectively contribute to the grid and are financially draining the country.

The speaker begins by expressing their initial lack of bias against electric cars but then reveals some shocking discoveries. They mention that the environmental benefit of electric cars is a lie, as the French environmental agency ADEME states that it takes five years for an electric car to have the same carbon footprint as a traditional car due to the production of batteries. The speaker also highlights the exorbitant cost of electric cars, stating that they are 45-50% more expensive than traditional cars, taking 10-20 years to recoup the savings from not buying fuel. Lastly, the speaker criticizes the European market for giving the Chinese automotive industry a significant advantage, with Chinese cars being 20% cheaper and equally reliable. They conclude by stating that 80% of batteries worldwide are sold by the Chinese.

Electric cars are expensive and will be used to control where people can and cannot go. Unlike traditional cars, autonomous electric cars will be computer-driven and will only take passengers where they are allowed to go. The goal is not to save the planet from climate change, but rather to impose control over people's movements. The idea is to replace petrol and diesel cars with electric ones in order to limit people's freedom and decide where they can travel. The claim of saving the planet is just an excuse.

Speaker 0 argues that 100-year-old automotive technology is continually refined and that exhaust from modern cars is cleaner than the air entering the intake in many cities, due to catalytic converters, NOx converters (notably in diesels), computer-controlled fuel injection, and stop-start systems. He claims that there is no justification for restricting petrol cars and contrasts this with restrictions on electric vehicles (EVs). He contends that the EV push is not about encouraging people to switch to EVs for environmental reasons but about driving people out of internal combustion engine (ICE) cars. The EV zero-emission vehicle mandate, he says, forces automotive manufacturers to sell an ever-increasing proportion of EVs each year, and he asserts this will destroy, bankrupt, and reduce mass-manufacturing conglomerates such as Volkswagen, Audi Group, Ford, and others. He cites an example with Volkswagen and Audi: they are not allowed to sell the desired mix of petrol and diesel vehicles because they will be fined £15,000 per car if they fail to sell 28% as EVs. He claims they are already restricting petrol and diesel sales, and notes that this pressure is already in place for 2025. He argues that European carmakers cannot sell many EVs because European cars are more expensive than cheaper Chinese imports. He shifts to a broader geopolitical economic view, stating this is not a mere consumer issue but a plan arranged by global financiers, describing it as a one-two punch: you cannot sell petrol and diesel because of mandates, and your cars are uncompetitive with cheaper Chinese imports. He notes there are 180 Chinese EV makers, with only one or two currently profitable; trade press reports suggest that by the end of the decade, seven to nine of them will be profitable while the rest will have failed. From this, he infers that someone is willing to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to manufacture cars at a loss so they can be delivered to Europe at a loss in order to destroy Europe’s mass-manufacturing capability. He concludes that as a result, there will simply not be enough cars to go around, and ultimately, the mandates will be moot because there will be none available.

The speaker claims the C40 consortium, composed of 40 of the world's largest cities, is pursuing an agenda that includes limiting citizens to three articles of clothing per year and a 95% reduction in private car ownership. They allege this is why electric cars are being promoted, even though there won't be enough electricity to power them. Additionally, the speaker states the agenda includes one short-haul flight per person every three years, which they believe will decimate the travel and tourism industries. They claim the ultimate goal, though not directly from C40, is an 85% reduction in Western living standards, which they say is deemed necessary by "green virtuous globalist utopians" for a green planet. The speaker believes bureaucrats are using this agenda to advance their careers, and radical leftists are willing to sacrifice the working class and the poor to achieve their ambitions.

The video opens with a field of over 10,000 Netavie Chinese EVs and BYD cars, all 2021 models, with license plates and fully registered, yet left to rot. The host claims that these cars are counted in China’s EV sales statistics, helping China appear to outpace the rest of the world in EV adoption. The argument is that China uses shortcuts and facades: large numbers of cars are parked in fields but are not actually sold. BYD and other brands allegedly register and put cars on the market to claim they have sold them, while surplus vehicles are dumped into fields. The host then connects this practice to broader “investment schemes” in China. He describes a pattern where fly-by-night investment schemes attract capital around new ideas, such as bicycle sharing, which created mountains of discarded bikes as investors poured money in. When these schemes collapsed, people moved on to shared electric vehicles. A documentary referenced, No Place to Place, shows drone footage of abandoned shared bikes and later, fields of abandoned electric vehicles in 2019, illustrating the shift from bikes to shared cars as the new money grab. According to the host, the shared-car model was viable in theory but pursued as a Ponzi-like scheme: companies pumped out vehicles to continue receiving investments without solid market research or viability, leading to vast fields of abandoned vehicles that will rot. Since these are electric, their batteries add a second layer of environmental concern. The batteries require complex mining and chemical processes, with alleged human rights abuses such as child or slave labor in battery production. The discarded cars therefore create environmental damage not only from manufacturing but also from long-term disposal and leakage of chemicals. The host argues that this practice causes environmental damage twice: first in the creation of the cars and their batteries, and second in their abandonment and degradation in the fields. He contends that China’s green-initiative image is largely a facade designed to attract investment, enabling profiteering from wasteful projects rather than genuine environmental benefit. He asserts that China’s opacity shields such activities from scrutiny; in the West, similar actions would attract media attention, fines, and accountability, but in China, these issues remain unaddressed. The overall claim is that China’s touted green technology leadership masks environmental crimes and profit-driven schemes that rely on misleading sales figures and large, abandoned fleets of electric vehicles, and that investors should think twice before investing in China.

Going all electric by 2035 is not practical because there is no such thing as a zero emission vehicle. Electric cars simply shift emissions elsewhere. Manufacturing a single 1,000 pound battery requires digging up 500,000 pounds of materials and 100 to 300 barrels of oil. This process can result in a carbon debt of 10 to 40 tons of CO2. Increasing battery usage will require more minerals like lithium, cobalt, and zinc, leading to a 400% to 4000% increase in demand. However, there isn't enough mining in the world to produce enough batteries for everyone's cars.

The speaker questions whether young people are being given all the facts about climate change. They ask Tanya Plibersek about the percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, to which she admits not knowing. The speaker then explains that carbon dioxide makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere, with humans responsible for 3% of that, and Australia responsible for 1.3% of that 3%. They argue that it is like cleaning a bridge for a granule of sugar and criticize the push for renewable energy and electric cars, claiming they are not reliable or affordable. They believe this ideology puts industry, jobs, and the economy at risk.

The Biden administration's research on solar radiation modification (SRM) as a climate policy component is seen by Mark Marano, publisher of climatedepot.com, as a government attempt to control weather. He points out that this approach, funded by Bill Gates through Harvard University, echoes ideas from the 1970s when scientists believed fossil fuels were causing global cooling. Marano criticizes the risky and unproven nature of SRM, suggesting it is being used as leverage to push for electric cars and Green New Deal policies. He argues that the American people have already shown their opposition to phasing out gas cars, with less than 7% of car sales being electric vehicles. Marano also raises concerns about the increased dependence on China and the intentional creation of car shortages to promote mass transit.

The speaker claims electric cars are a "con," citing John Kerry's private jet usage. A Jay Leno clip with Joe Biden was filmed at the Secret Service Training Center, where the speaker used to work, suggesting the whole thing is a "schtick." According to an op-ed, there's only enough battery power to power the world for 75 seconds. The speaker analogizes this to a hospital patient on life support. By 2030, the plan is to have enough battery power for only eleven minutes. The speaker believes "liberals" are asking for a solution that doesn't exist. The other speaker agrees, stating that the plan is not well thought out.

The speaker, a long-time green energy supporter, was dismayed to learn about the environmental and human costs associated with green technologies. A single lithium mine allegedly creates millions of tons of waste annually, laced with sulfuric acid and radioactive uranium, polluting water for 300 years. Child labor is used to mine cobalt. Solar panels are allegedly made by laborers in razor wire enclosed camps exposed to quartz dust, causing silicosis. The Ethical Consumer Organization reports that forced labor in the solar panel supply chain is hard to avoid. Wind turbines consume vast resources, require diesel to start, gallons of oil to lubricate, and are hard to recycle. Solar panels are also extremely difficult to recycle, costing more than production. Lithium batteries pose steep challenges too. The speaker claims these "green" solutions are actually good marketing from the $1.5 trillion climate change industry. They urge people to prevent further escalation through unnecessary EVs and solar farms consuming farmland.

The focus on achieving net zero emissions is seen as a way to control people's lives and behaviors while increasing costs. Some believe it has little impact on the environment. Bikers should have the freedom to ride without interference.

The speaker questions whether young people are being given all the facts about climate change. They ask Tanya Plibersek about the percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, to which she admits she doesn't know. The speaker then explains that carbon dioxide makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere, with humans responsible for 3% of that, and Australia responsible for 1.3% of that. They argue that it is like cleaning a bridge for a tiny speck of sugar and criticize the push for renewable energy and electric cars. They believe it puts the economy, industry, and jobs at risk.

I support green energy and the environment, but I was shocked to learn about the negative impacts of lithium mining and the use of child labor in cobalt mining. The production of solar panels and wind turbines also has significant environmental and resource costs, and they are difficult to recycle. The ethical concerns and human suffering associated with the production of electronic devices are minimal compared to the requirements for electric vehicles and solar farms. The climate change industry, worth $1.5 trillion annually, heavily markets these solutions. We cannot undo what has been done, but we should prevent further damage by avoiding unnecessary electric vehicles and solar farms on valuable farmland.

There is a scandal involving electric vehicles (EVs) and their claimed efficiency. Two Washington attorneys argue that the government is misleading the public by inflating the fuel efficiency of EVs. They claim that carmakers multiply the efficiency of EVs by a factor of 6.67, resulting in exaggerated numbers. Additionally, compliance credits are given based on these inflated scores, which can be traded for cash. Tesla alone has received billions of dollars in credits. The report highlights that this information is buried deep in the federal register and not widely known. The speaker praises the report as excellent.

President Biden initially stated that he wanted 50% of new cars to be electric by 2030, but it has now been updated to 60%. It is true that electric cars require six times the mineral inputs compared to conventional cars. However, if 50% of cars were electric today, the current electric grid would not have enough power to charge them all. Achieving EV targets globally by 2030 would only reduce global temperatures by 0.0002 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100. Despite this, unilaterally impacting the U.S. auto market, critical mineral supply chain, and grid stability is not seen as the solution for addressing temperature goals.

According to the speaker, Canada has an electric vehicle mandate, implemented without parliamentary debate, requiring all vehicles sold in Canada to be electric by 2035. This was enacted by the environmental minister through changes to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA). The speaker believes this mandate is an example of government overreach, citing challenges posed by Canada's cold climate, the needs of rural Canadians, and power outages that would render electric vehicles unusable. The speaker contrasts this approach with the conservative viewpoint, which emphasizes individual choice and ensuring the infrastructure is in place to support those who choose electric vehicles. The speaker states conservatives prioritize equal opportunity in areas like education, employment, healthcare, and family raising.

The speaker, a long-time green energy supporter, was dismayed to learn about the environmental and human costs associated with green technologies. A single lithium mine allegedly creates millions of tons of waste annually, laced with sulfuric acid and radioactive uranium, polluting water for 300 years. Child labor is used to mine cobalt. Solar panels are allegedly made by laborers in razor wire enclosed camps exposed to quartz dust, causing silicosis. The Ethical Consumer Organization reports that forced labor in the solar panel supply chain is hard to avoid. Wind turbines consume vast resources, require diesel to start, gallons of oil to lubricate, and are hard to recycle. Solar panels are also difficult to recycle, and lithium batteries pose challenges. The speaker claims these so-called green solutions are actually good marketing from the $1.5 trillion climate change industry. The speaker urges people to prevent the exponential escalation of these issues with unnecessary EVs and solar farms.

Biden's push for electric vehicles has resulted in auto workers losing their jobs and car dealerships struggling to sell unwanted EVs. Despite the lack of demand, those who do buy electric vehicles to save on gas are now being targeted by the government for more revenue. This includes placing tracking devices on their cars to monitor their usage. It's frustrating how liberals can support such policies.

By 2035, Canada will mandate that citizens can only purchase electric vehicles due to a change in the Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) quietly put in place by the environmental minister. The mandate stipulates that all vehicles made in Canada must have zero emissions. A speaker argues that the government is overreaching, citing issues such as cold climates, the needs of rural Canadians, and power outages, such as one that occurred in Peterborough three weeks prior, as examples of why the mandate won't work. During the five day outage, electric vehicles were rendered useless. The speaker suggests that families should be able to choose to buy electric vehicles if they want, and the government's role should be to ensure the infrastructure is in place to support them.

A field of over 10,000 Chinese EV cars, with less than 31 miles, are abandoned to inflate sales numbers for subsidies. China's investment schemes led to shared electric cars left to rot, causing environmental harm with wasted resources and batteries. China's green initiatives are a facade to attract investments, masking environmental damage. The lack of transparency allows these practices to continue unchecked. Think twice before investing in China's misleading green projects. Translation (if needed): Abandoned Chinese EV cars inflate sales numbers for subsidies, causing environmental harm with wasted resources and batteries. China's green initiatives mask environmental damage to attract investments. Lack of transparency allows these practices to continue unchecked. Think twice before investing in China's misleading green projects.

I don't see myself going fully electric because the battery capacity needed for trucks is currently too large. Electric trucks require about 3 megawatts of power per day, which means carrying around 50,000 pounds of batteries. Additionally, our grid infrastructure is outdated and not equipped to handle the power demands of electric trucks. For example, logging trucks alone consume 12.5 gigawatts of power, while a dam that cost $20 billion and took 15 years to build only has a capacity of 1.1 gigawatts. Instead, I believe a hybrid approach that reduces fuel consumption by 50% and uses cleaner burning generators is a more practical solution, as fully electric technology won't work for most applications.

Crooked Joe Biden and the Democrats want to shut down all US coal plants, despite the lessons learned in Germany and other places. Meanwhile, China is rapidly building one large coal plant per week. This is concerning because it seems like the USA is heading towards self-destruction. We must prevent this from happening by eliminating the Green News scam, which is a total fraud and is detrimental to our country.

Advocates for NetZero need to address the practicalities of achieving it. Without fossil fuels, which are used in almost everything we do, including food production, transportation, and job creation, it's not feasible. The goal of achieving net zero emissions by 2050 is unrealistic and has not been successful so far, as global carbon emissions have actually increased. This policy benefits countries like China, India, and Russia, who don't follow the rules, at the expense of Western nations. Eventually, this will lead to anger and frustration when net zero emissions cannot be achieved.