Climate crime through less duty on combustion carsExample: An electric car costs €15,000 before customs duty, a combustion engine costs €18,000. After 40% duty, the electric car costs €21,000, after 10% duty the combustion engine costs €19,800.
Chinese companies such as BYD, Geely and the state-owned car manufacturer SAIC have increased their exports of hybrid vehicles to the EU, mainly because they are not subject to EU tariffs. This is because hybrid cars use both electric batteries and combustion engines. Here to the article.
If this is true, and Euronews should be a reliable source, then the EU is promoting the sale of cars with internal combustion engines and hindering the sale of cars with electric drives. Either you believe in climate change, climate catastrophe and climate disaster, then you have to implement serious plans on how to reduce emissions and finally get back to 350 ppm CO2 to clean up the planet, or you don't believe in it and just want to put on a big show for the believers. In that case, you simply shut down perfectly functional nuclear power plants, what does a billion tons more CO2 emissions matter? Then you promote the sale of combustion engines by charging much less duty than for electric cars. Let's calculate one million cars that emit 100 g CO2/km more and are used for 250,000 km. That's 25 tons more per buyer who opted for a combustion engine instead of an electric car due to the different tariffs. With one million cars, that is already 25 million tons of CO2 over their entire service life. Where are all the environmental fuzzies who are constantly calling for a speed limit in Germany? Who are constantly lecturing us? Nothing heard, no reaction, just loud silence. Let's do the math on the speed limit. 45 million cars with 14,000 km per year save 50 g CO2/km on 2% of the kilometers due to the speed limit. That's 14 kg per vehicle and 0.63 million tons for the whole of Germany per year. Only 2% of kilometers over 130? Many people don't want to drive faster, and on many trips on the highway there is hardly any opportunity to drive faster.
Let's take two scenarios: 20% or 60% of German cars will be electric by 2035. That is a difference of 18 million cars. 18 million times 14,000 km per year times 100 g less CO2/km equals 25.2 million for the whole of Germany per year. A campaign that manages to get 40% more electric cars driving in Germany by 2035 is 40 times more effective in terms of CO2 reduction than a 130 speed limit. But these environmental fuzzies aren't thinking about strategy and climate, they're just thinking about how we can annoy these evil, evil speeders.
There is the EU and China. Both want more electric cars. The EU's methods are a disaster. How many electric cars would there be without Tesla, BYD and the other Chinese manufacturers? The EU has set targets for fleet consumption. The series of articles on Merkel and the car industry shows how flawed this strategy was. China, on the other hand, has been very successful in motivating its car industry. The EU hates this and is imposing punitive tariffs on electric cars, so the Chinese should export cars with combustion engines! Example calculation: An electric car costs €15,000 before customs duty, a combustion engine costs €18,000. After 40% duty, the electric car costs €21,000, after 10% duty the combustion engine costs €19,800.
What if fleet emissions and the payments for exceeding them were not intended to motivate car manufacturers to produce electric cars? What if all this was only intended to generate income for the EU? Perhaps the EU thought when it introduced fleet emissions: "Our car manufacturers are far too stupid to sell enough electric cars, they will contribute quite a lot to the EU budget". In fact, the EU would have assessed its own car manufacturers correctly. But then Tesla came along and built up additional revenue by selling fleet emission rights. Revenue that the EU would otherwise have collected. What if the EU thought to itself that this must not happen again? High tariffs on Chinese electric cars, the normal tariffs on combustion engines, would then be the solution to the problem. If they sell 70% combustion cars and only 30% electric cars, then there will be no emission rights left to sell. Budget saved, why should we care about the climate?
Net zero emissions means reducing greenhouse gas emissions to a level that nature can supposedly absorb for a long time. For the rich, this means Maintain poverty, cause poverty, so that enough emission rights remain for the rich. See the architect and her opinion that Africans don't need roads.
Planetary cleanup back to 350 ppm CO2 means about 47,000 TWh of electricity to filter 1 ppm CO2 from the atmosphere and recycle it into carbon and oxygen. Who can afford that? Only a rich human race, 10 billion people in prosperity can do it. One million km² of energy-optimized settlement areas alone should contribute 150,000 TWh for the necessary electricity for world-wide prosperity and planetary restoration.
It's not about whether the shares will be worth 10 times or 100 times more in 20 years' time or whether they will only be worth a few cents. It's about the future of us all. Will there be a big showdown between eco-fascism and yesterday's fossils, or will it be possible to overcome the deep divisions in society and inspire supporters of both sides to work towards a great new goal? Global prosperity and planetary restoration instead of saving, restricting, renouncing and climate catastrophe or peak oil and a little more climate catastrophe. Both sides must be convinced that they have no solution that is even remotely viable. On the one hand, it must be shown that net-zero emissions are a completely inadequate target and that the goal must instead be a planetary clean-up back to 350 ppm CO2. The other side must be shown that solar power enables a higher standard of living than fossil energy. It's about survival! The social situation in 2024 compared to 2004. Extrapolating that to 2044 makes for a horror world! If we are successful and your shares are worth 100 times more, this is just an addition to all the other achievements. One new shareholder said, "Me with my very modest investment", but €4,000 times €1,000 is also €4 million for all investments up to the opening of the settlement in Unken as a starting point for global expansion. There is a reward program for recommending the share to others. Two of the new shareholders have become shareholders through this reward program. Here are the details.
My studies on off-grid fast-charging settlements have already resulted in initial contact and a video conference with the CEO of a major African company. The most important statements: "There are about 2 million homes missing" and "Solar-powered cement factories are a fascinating new idea". Initial negotiations have been held with two financing platforms. There are several chances of an event that could lead to a jump in the share price. At today's share price, € 2 million would be 10,000 packages at € 200 and 300,000 shares for the buyer. However, if these € 2 million are only worth 20% of the AG, this would logically result in a very significant jump in the share price. |
