The European Union took a significant step on Tuesday toward the stated goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from transportation.
Lawmakers voted to prohibit the sale of new gasoline-powered cars and vans by 2035, requiring all new cars in Europe to be electric within 12 years.
This is the most substantial action taken so far by the EU in the name of eliminating so-called climate change-causing greenhouse gases from transportation, which currently accounts for 37% of global carbon emissions.
The International Energy Agency reports that cars are the largest source of transportation emissions.
While some lawmakers expressed concerns that the ban would have a negative impact on the European auto industry, the majority of policymakers saw it as an opportunity to get ahead of the inevitable shift towards electric vehicles.
They argued that it would ultimately benefit the continent’s manufacturing industry by stimulating innovation and investments for car manufacturers.
“These targets create clarity for the car industry and stimulate innovation and investments for car manufacturers,” said Jan Huitema, a member of the European Parliament from the Netherlands.
Moreover, the move is expected to reduce fuel costs for consumers.
Although electric cars are presently more expensive than traditional models, their prices are anticipated to be cost-competitive by 2035.
California, which has the largest share of car sales in the United States, has already set a standard requiring all-electric new car sales in 2035, and other states may soon follow their lead.
Although the law may not result in a decline in overall car manufacturing in Europe, some auto company employees may be affected by the transition.
As a result of the change, Ford Motor Company stated on Tuesday that it would cut about 11% of its workforce in Europe over the next three years as it shifts resources from factories that currently build gas-powered cars to ones that produce electric vehicles.
Meanwhile, climate change “alarmists” have yet to address the apparent bias that goes into which dates they select for global temperature comparisons. Per Eugene Slaven for The Daily Caller:
Here’s the Weather.gov table showing the average annual temperature by year from 1875 to 2021. During this period, the temperature fluctuated to 56.3 F, up 3.8 degrees from 52.5 F in 1875. Is that good, bad, or neutral? I honestly could not tell you. But according to the alarmists, this rise represents an existential threat. It’s time for them to explain why. Would any increase in temperature over this period constitute a cause for concern? A 2 degree increase? How about a 0.7 degree increase? Yes, no, maybe, and above all, why? This critical question forces alarmists to concede that “global warming is bad” is not a scientific argument.
Alarmists also have not addressed global “cooling”:
Between 1934 and 2019, the average temperature dropped from 55.3 to 53.6 degrees. How do alarmists account for the 1.7 degree drop in this 85 year span? Why was the world warmer in 1934 than in 2019? And lest you’re accused of selection bias or some other such statistical chicanery, this data sample covers 85 years of the 146-year period. Curiously, the temperature increased from 53.6 in 2019 to 55.7 in 2020 — even though 2020 saw a sharp pandemic-driven decrease in CO2 emissions. The small sample size notwithstanding, this sort of granular analysis is entirely absent from the debate. Maybe there’s a reason for the occasional inverse relationship between CO2 and temperature — but has anyone ever explained it?
Nor have they stated how much warming is acceptable before disaster strikes:
The Paris Agreement declares that the “goal is to limit global warming to well below 2, preferably to 1.5 degrees C (2.7 F), compared to pre-industrial levels.” But where did this number come from? No, seriously, how did scientists arrive at this number? Could alarmists produce a study showing how limiting temperature increases would save the planet?
Nor what percent decrease in CO2 emissions will achieve their desired decrease in temperature:
The alarmists’ thesis implicitly boils down to this: if we decrease carbon emissions by X, global temperature increases will be limited by Y. But how does the Agreement’s emissions reduction proposal limit increases? If you’re going to argue that cutting CO2 emissions by nearly half in the next decade will limit global warming, at least show your work. Together with the alarmists’ inability to explain how much global warming is acceptable and how much is catastrophic, this gap in logic presents a perfect point of attack.
We’ve all heard the 97% Consensus™ claim ad nauseam. Where does it come from and who are the dissenting 3 percent? Presumably, they’re reputable scientists, or they would not be included in the breakdown. Is it fair to dismiss them because they’re in the minority, thereby subjecting science to majoritarian rule?” Are there 3% of reputable scientists who believe the earth is flat or that heart transplants are impossible or that nuclear physics is fake?
Could the positive results bias or the file drawer effect partially account for the 97% figure? How about the stark discrepancy in grants available to scientists who sound the alarm on global warming vs. the skeptics?
