Thursday, May 29, 2025

Polaris of Enlightenment

Ad:

Driving an electric car is fake environmentalism

The exaggerated climate crisis

Electric cars are causing very real environmental problems, writes former science advisor at the UK Gov. Dept. of Energy and Climate Change and former UN Environment Officer Mark Keenan in a guest analysis.

Published 29 February 2024
EV batteries require a staggering amount of natural resources.

In Sweden there exists an electrified road for Electric Vehicles (EVs) to charge while driving, see endnote i. The 2 km stretch of road is the world’s first of its kind, and an expansion of a further 3,000 km of electric road by 2045 is planned. It all sounds rather cool and futuristic, and I am reminded of a song lyric from the 1980s, the singer Eddie Grant sang “we’re gonna rock onto Electric Avenue”.

A road with an electrified lane where vehicles can charge while driving. Photo: Indiatimes.

However, let us consider whether these expensive EVs are actually environmentally friendly or are yet another mega-corporate marketing scam?

This article demonstrates that the latter is the case. The reality is that the misled environmentalists buying these cars are suckers for mega-corporate advertising, ignorantly proud of their so-called low-carbon eco-cars. Apparently, unaware that the manufacture of millions of electric car batteries, requires huge mining operations to acquire and refine large quantities of rare earth metals, such as lithium, rhodium and cobalt; that these metals have to be mined out of the ground using machinery which is powered by carbon-emitting vehicles powered by diesel or petrol; and importantly, that the mining and refining processes can cause significant and extensive pollution to land, air and water systems, for example in rural China and Mongolia, see endnote ii. Unlike the fake manmade climate change agenda, these are real environmental problems.

Below is a picture of a lithium leach field. This is what your EV batteries are made of. It is so neuro-toxic that a bird landing on this stuff dies in minutes. Take a guess what it does to your nervous system? Pat yourself on the back for saving the environment.

A lithium leach field. Photo: Tom Hegen.

Furthermore, the push to end gasoline or diesel transport by 2035 in favor of e-vehicles is based on a lie as the lithium-ion battery-powered vehicles have a total “carbon footprint” when the effects of mining lithium and producing all parts are included, that is worse than diesel autos.

Furthermore, electric cars are still driven by electricity produced from fossil fuels and will most likely continue to be. Despite decades of government subsidies wind power provides less than 5% of the world’s energy, and solar just 1%. The use of electricity to charge vehicles and devices is also an extremely in-efficient use of energy, according to a study by the European Association for Battery Electric Vehicles commissioned by the European Commission (EC):

“The ‘Well-to-Tank’ energy efficiency (from the primary energy source to the electrical plug), taking into account the energy consumed by the production and distribution of the electricity, is estimated at around 37%”.

Deceptive marketing

Let us take a look at the deceptive marketing for electric vehicles. The first misleading marketing trick that millions of environmentalists fell for was the ‘hybrid’. Hybrid cars are actually gasoline powered cars with a little battery assistance and the little battery has to be charged from the gasoline engine. If the EPA-certified mileage is 55 mpg, then it is no different from a non-hybrid that achieves 55 mpg. A world 100% full of ‘hybrid’ drivers is still 100% addicted to oil.

Now consider a cleverly designed marketing pitch for electric cars by Elon Musk, Co-Founder & CEO of Tesla Motors. In an article published on the Tesla Motors website, see endnote iii, he states:

“The overarching purpose of Tesla Motors… is to help expedite the move from a mine-and-burn hydrocarbon economy towards a solar electric economy… I’d like to address two repeated arguments against electric vehicles – battery disposal and power plant emissions… the Tesla Motors Lithium-Ion cells are not classified as hazardous and are landfill safe… the battery pack can be sold to recycling companies (unsubsidized) at the end of its greater than 100,000-mile design life…

A common rebuttal to electric vehicles as a solution to carbon emissions is that they simply transfer the CO2 emissions to the power plant. The obvious counter is that one can develop grid electric power from a variety of means, many of which, like hydro, wind, geothermal, nuclear, solar, etc. involve no CO2 emissions. However, let’s assume for the moment that the electricity is generated from a hydrocarbon source like natural gas… the hands down winner is pure electric:

 

Car Energy source CO2 content Efficiency CO2 emissions
Honda CNG Natural gas 14.4 g/MJ 0.32 km/MJ 45.0 g/km
Honda FCX Natural gas-fuel cell 14.4 g/MJ 0.35 km/MJ 41.1 g/km
Toyota Prius Oil 19.9 g/MJ 0.56 km/MJ 35.8 g/km
Tesla Roadster Natural gas electric 14.4 g/MJ 1.14 km/MJ 12.6 g/km

 

we will be offering a modestly sized and priced solar… This system can be… set up as a carport and will generate about 50 miles per day of electricity. If you travel less than 350 miles per week, you will therefore be “energy positive” with respect to your personal transportation… you will actually be putting more energy back into the system than you consume in transportation!”

However, Elon Musk’s narrative is debunked here as he does not mention the fact that:

  • The move from mine-and-burn hydrocarbon economy towards a solar electric economy in itself requires a vast expenditure of fossil-fuel energy to re-purpose the entire worldwide industrial system, as well as build vast new energy grids for wind and solar energy, etc, simply to reduce CO2 emissions. A new industrial framework which in itself will still be very polluting to land, air, and water in virtually the same ways as the old framework as it creates more and more ‘product’ to be marketed and sold, such as electric cars, which we are now incorrectly told is okay because its ‘green product’;
  • The Energy Returned on Energy Invested (EROEI) for solar and wind energy is too low to be viable, and therefore to repurpose and rebuild the world energy and industrial system to de-carbonise the economy is a waste of vast amounts of fossils fuels (no wonder the sector seeks subsidies);
  • The manufacture of potentially hundreds of millions of new electric cars and electric car batteries involves a continuation of widespread mining and processing of rare earth metals, such as lithium, rhodium and cobalt, which are a limited resource. The mining and processing of rare earth metals has been shown to be polluting to land, air, and water systems, such as rivers.
  • If you charge the car with solar energy, you may be putting slightly more energy back into the system than you consume in ‘driving the car’. However, driving the electric car is only one small part of the entire energy consuming process from mining to manufacture to distribution, not to mention the embedded energy in the manufactured materials of a new worldwide supply-chain industrial infrastructure, including cars, factories, energy grids, windmills, photovoltaics, etc.
  • And, vitally, that CO2 emissions are not the cause of climate change. This is evidenced in my books: Transcending the Climate Change Deception Toward Real Sustainability and CO2 Climate Hoax – How Bankers Hijacked the Real Environment Movement

Climate change – a natural phenomenon

I have experience in the climate and energy sector as a Science Advisor at the U.K. Government’s Department of Energy and Climate Change; and as an Environmental Affairs Officer at the United Nations (UN) in Geneva, Switzerland. At the UN I was responsible for servicing the Pollution Release and Transfer Register Protocol, a Multinational Environmental Agreement, involving the monitoring of thousands of different pollutants to land, air, and water worldwide. Real pollution exists, but the problem is not CO2. CO2 is not actually a pollutant, it is an odorless gas, it is not soot and it is not poisonous. Actually, CO2 has beneficial properties for humankind because it is a fertilizer – without sufficient CO2 plants and crops will not grow. The biology of the earth is driven by CO2. If CO2 is less than 150 ppm, almost all life on Earth will disappear.

The little ice age ended as recently as around 1800, so it is no surprise that we are now experiencing a little warming. However, this warming period will end, and we will move again to a colder phase. That is how the Earth’s climate system has behaved for billions of years.

The Climate Intelligence (CLINTEL) is an independent foundation that operates in the fields of climate change and climate policy. CLINTEL was founded in 2019 by Dutch emeritus professor of geophysics Guus Berkhout. After its launch in 2019, it published the World Climate Declaration (WCD), which has an impressive list of over 1850 signatories worldwide, including Nobel Prize laureates and leading scientists and climate experts.

I am also a signatory of the World Climate Declaration, a declaration that refutes the United Nations narrative on climate change. The reality is the climate changes naturally. Climate change is not manmade due to CO2 emissions, or cow-made due to methane emissions as the UN claim.

Resource-intensive batteries

As an example of why electric cars are fake environmentalism let us consider a Tesla model Y battery in the picture below.

Tesla Model Y battery.

It takes up all of the space under the passenger compartment of the car. To manufacture it seemingly requires about 55 kilograms weight of lithium, cobalt, nickel, and manganese, and during manufacturing about 200 kilograms  of aluminum, steel and/or plastic and 50 kilograms  of graphite. To obtain these is far from easy – it has been estimated that you need to mine around 35 tons of rock, cobalt minerals, nickel ore, and copper ore; and move over 200 tons of soil just to make one battery!

A Caterpillar 994A vehicle is commonly used for the earthmoving to obtain the essential minerals. It has been estimated to consume between 250 and 775 gallons of diesel in 12 hours, see endnote iv. Finally, you get a “zero emissions” car that is not zero-emissions at all in terms of manufacture; and due to the fact that EVs are still driven by electricity produced from fossil fuels and will most likely continue to be.

The cost of Tesla batteries for the Tesla car models ranges from $5,000 to $20,000. It appears that it takes seven years for an electric car to reach net-zero CO2. The average life expectancy of the batteries is 10 years. Only in the last three years would you begin to reduce your carbon footprint. Then the batteries have to be replaced and you lose all the gains you made in those three years.

Term “sustainable” hijacked decades ago

The reality should be distinguished from the lies we are all being told by the UN, the World Economic Forum and mega-corporate advertising. The word “sustainable” was hijacked decades ago, and it is now deceptively used to advance the agendas of mega-corporate financial interests who want to sell countless millions of electric cars and who couldn’t care less about the environment. Are they concerned about the polluting effects of mining and processing rare earth metals to produce tens of millions of large electric car batteries?

As detailed in my book CO2 Climate Hoax – How Bankers Hijacked the Real Environment Movement the aim of the UN and the WEF is to catapult humanity into the ‘fake-sustainable’ totalitarian arms of UN Agenda 2030 and other clever marketing plans entirely designed by the so-called corporate elites of the WEF Davos group.

 

 

Mark-Gerard Keenan

 


1 Source: https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/05/09/sweden-is-building-the-worlds-first-permanent-electrified-road-for-evs-to-charge-while-dri

2 Source: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/aug/07/china-rare-earth-village-pollution

3 The relevant article written by Elon Musk is available at: https://www.tesla.com/blog/secret-tesla-motors-master-plan-just-between-you-and-me

4 Source: https://www.heavyequipmentforums.com/threads/cat-994-fuel-consumption.94089/

Mark Gerard Keenan, is a former scientist at the UK Government Dept. of Energy and Climate Change, and at the United Nations Environment Division. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is author of the following books available on Amazon:

Transcending the Climate Change Deception Toward Real Sustainability
CO2 Climate Hoax – How Bankers Hijacked the Real Environment Movement
Godless Fake Science
No Worries No Virus
Demonic Economics and the Tricks of the Bankers

TNT is truly independent!

We don’t have a billionaire owner, and our unique reader-funded model keeps us free from political or corporate influence. This means we can fearlessly report the facts and shine a light on the misdeeds of those in power.

Consider a donation to keep our independent journalism running…

Climeworks’ green billion-dollar venture in Iceland dismissed as a scam

The exaggerated climate crisis

Published 27 May 2025
– By Editorial Staff
Climework's activities are described as at best pointless - at worst, downright harmful.

Despite promises of groundbreaking climate solutions, Swiss carbon dioxide giant Climeworks’ facility in Iceland has not only captured far less than promised – it has also emitted more carbon dioxide than it has absorbed.

Critics say the whole operation is deeply deceptive and one of many examples of scam projects created to profit from the alleged climate crisis.

Climeworks, a Swiss company that markets itself as a pioneer in direct carbon capture (DAC), has failed to achieve its targets in Iceland despite significant investment and media attention.

According to data from the verification company Puro.Earth and the company’s own annual reports, Climeworks has only captured around 2,400 tons of CO₂ in Iceland since 2021 – far below the promised capacity ceiling of 12,000 tons. In addition, the company’s own emissions from its operations have exceeded its capture: in 2023 alone, Climeworks emitted 1,700 tons of CO₂, significantly more than its total capture.

Climeworks’ first facility, Orca, was unveiled in 2021 with a capacity of 4,000 tons of CO₂ per year. In reality, it has never even reached half that target. The larger Mammoth facility, which could capture 36,000 tons annually, has only managed to collect 105 tons after ten months of operation.

According to CEO Jan Wurzbacher, Mammoth requires 5,000–6,000 kWh per ton of CO₂ captured – a process described as extremely inefficient. To offset Iceland’s total emissions (12.4 million tons in 2024), 72 terawatt hours of energy would be needed – four times the country’s annual electricity production.

Professor: “A scam”

Climeworks’ Icelandic subsidiary has negative equity of ISK 3.6 billion (€25 million) and is entirely dependent on funding from its parent company. The value of the Orca machine has also been written down by €1.25 million due to underperformance.

Despite this, the company has sold future carbon credits equivalent to one-third of Mammoth’s planned capacity for the next 25 years – even though over 21,000 private subscribers who have paid in advance risk having to wait decades for their certificates.

Mark Z. Jacobson, professor of environmental science at Stanford University, calls the entire DAC industry a big scam and fraud.

– Direct capture is a scam, carbon capture is a scam, blue hydrogen is a scam, and electrofuel is a scam. These are all scam technologies that do nothing for the climate or air pollution.

“Semi-magical technology”

Michael de Podesta, a British pensioner who paid ISK 135,000 (€940) for 2.2 tons of CO₂ capture, expresses similar concerns in his blog, and after looking into the company more closely, he believes he has probably been scammed.

This has all the hallmarks of a scam. There are undoubtedly a lot of highly paid people traveling the world to sell their services to large corporations to remove carbon credits in the future. They are using a semi-magical technology that doesn’t work as well as expected (better known as Orca) but will work perfectly in a larger version (Mammoth)”.

“I am urged to convince my friends to join the project. The answers are scarce and full of PR chatter. Climeworks’ operations look like a scam and talk like one. But is it a scam? I don’t know. I think it could work, but the company’s answers are so opaque that it’s hard to say”, he continues.

He will not know for sure until 2027 whether Climeworks has actually captured the 2.2 tons of carbon dioxide he has paid for.

Millions from the US

It is also worth noting that the company has received or been promised around $800 million in public subsidies, including $625 million from the US Department of Energy and $5 million from Switzerland. Despite this, the cost per ton of CO₂ captured remains at $1,000 – ten times higher than the original target.

Due to the failures of DAC, Climeworks has now instead begun to focus on “enhanced weathering”, a highly controversial method in which crushed rock is bound with CO₂. However, researchers believe that this is a sign of desperation to fulfill credits that have already been sold.

In summary, critics point out that Climeworks’ operations have been characterized by exaggerated promises, technical shortcomings, and financial irresponsibility since its inception. Despite being ranked as one of the world’s leading green tech companies by Time Magazine, its contribution to climate action is described as marginal at best and at worst as directly counterproductive and harmful.

Swedish homeowners could face thousands in fees for municipal “climate action”

The exaggerated climate crisis

Published 13 May 2025
– By Editorial Staff
According to Romina Pourmokhtari, Minister for Climate and Environment, municipalities will not be able to charge land and property owners "any amount".

A new report suggests that Swedish property owners may be required to finance municipalities’ “climate adaptation measures”, with costs potentially reaching tens of thousands of EUR.

The proposal, which has been submitted to Climate and Environment Minister Romina Pourmokhtari (L), gives municipalities the right to, for example, build flood defenses to protect “matters of public interest” – and then charge property owners who are considered to benefit from the measure.

The investigator Johan Hjalmarsson himself points out that the term “public interest” is deliberately broad and vaguely worded.

– It could be buildings such as municipal buildings and schools, but it doesn’t have to be. There will need to be a municipal connection, but it doesn’t have to be a municipal facility, he told state television.

However, for the fee to apply, there must be a “significant risk” of damage from a specific natural event, and this risk must be eliminated by the measure. A property owner’s total fee may not exceed 10 percent of the market value of the property.

“Cannot charge whatever fees they want”

Liberal Climate and Environment Minister Romina Pourmokhtari claims that the proposal is about dealing with the direct consequences of the alleged climate crisis:

– In the same way that we have great respect and a strong desire to defend property rights in Sweden, with property rights come not only freedoms but also obligations. This is an example of the real consequences of climate change. Not in the future, but today, and that must be taken into account, she asserts.

She further promises that municipalities “cannot charge whatever fees they want”.

– Whether the government will implement this or not is something we cannot say today, she continues, describing the proposals as “interesting”.

Not all coastlines can be protected

The report also proposes that the state take responsibility for protecting certain coastlines from flooding through physical barriers, and Hjalmarsson admits that this will require prioritizing and choosing what to protect and which communities to leave exposed to the elements.

– But this is not something that will change overnight; the costs can be spread out over many years.

He argues that the need is urgent and that he has “met many municipalities that see the need for a decision from the state now”.

Maximum temperatures in nursing homes

The report also highlights the need to introduce maximum temperatures in premises for particularly vulnerable groups, such as the elderly.

– Heat waves are already a major problem for the elderly in our society. So I think it’s very important that these issues are brought to light and that we discuss what we can do, says Pourmokhtari.

For municipalities, this could mean a requirement to install air conditioning in nursing homes.

– If requirements are the way forward, this is something the government will need to look at. But action will be needed, and too little is being done today, adds the minister.

The investigator’s report will now be prepared by the Government Offices and sent out for consultation in accordance with standard procedures.

Swedish Green Party: Fuel prices to rise sharply if we win 2026 election

The exaggerated climate crisis

Published 11 May 2025
– By Editorial Staff
Amanda Lind, Green Party, promises higher fuel prices in case of an election win next year.

The Swedish Green Party wants to see higher prices for petrol and diesel if it wins next year’s election and is counting on support from other red-green parties. The party is proposing a significantly higher reduction target and a new emissions trading system.

According to spokesperson Amanda Lind, Sweden risks missing several climate targets with its current policy and believes that a faster transition requires fossil fuels to become more expensive.

Amanda Lind emphasized in the tax-funded SVT program “30 minuter” that the party wants to raise the reduction obligation so that the price of gasoline and diesel initially rises by two to three kronor per liter, and then gradually more until 2030.

It will be more expensive for us to manage the climate transition, Lind said.

Broad consensus

The Green Party wants to phase out the reduction obligation in the long term and instead introduce a national emissions trading system, where companies must purchase emission allowances from the state. Until this system is in place, the party wants the reduction obligation to be increased, which will directly affect the price at the pump.

Amanda Lind believes that the entire opposition supports this approach and that there is broad agreement that traditional fuels must cost more.

The Kristersson government has previously lowered the reduction obligation and thus fuel prices, which the Green Party believes has slowed down electrification and climate work. To mitigate the impact on households with long distances to travel, the party wants to introduce targeted support and at the same time invest in public transport and electric cars.

Overall, the Green Party’s proposal means that fuel prices will increase gradually over the coming years if the red-green coalition wins the 2026 election.

Sweden Democrats leader dismisses climate alarmism: “No reason to panic”

The exaggerated climate crisis

Published 7 May 2025
– By Editorial Staff
Jimmie Åkesson wants the focus to be on long-term and sustainable initiatives - not quick panic solutions.

Unlike most other Swedish establishment politicians, Sweden Democrats leader Jimmie Åkesson is highly skeptical of the climate alarmist rhetoric that dominates and wants the EU to slow down its climate initiatives.

Åkesson does not believe that the “climate threat” is in reality as serious as it is often portrayed by politicians and the media, nor does he buy the argument that we must hurry up and do everything we can before it is too late.

– I don’t share the view that there is such a hurry, he tells the tabloid Aftonbladet. Instead, he wants to put more resources into military rearmament.

– I am absolutely no expert, but everyone I talk to who has really familiarized themselves with what the IPCC’s various reports and scenarios say, there is no reason whatsoever to panic or climate anxiety, or anything like that at all.

Instead of quick and ill-considered measures that can have very negative consequences for society at large, the leader of the Sweden Democrats argues that we should invest in a long-term transition and electrification.

As expected, Åkesson’s departure from the established narrative on the climate issue has not gone down well with everyone.

Climate professor: “Very urgent”

Markku Rummukainen is a professor of climatology at Lund University and until 2023 represented Sweden on the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) a body tasked with compiling and presenting research on alleged climate change, global warming and its consequences.

The climate professor raged against Åkesson’s move, firmly stating that his views contradict the IPCC reports and unlike the SD leader, Rummukainen emphasized that it is “very urgent” to stop climate change.

– Yes, it is. There are, of course, different options for the way forward depending on what we do. There are opportunities to limit climate change between 1.5 and 2 degrees. If we don’t take the climate issue seriously, we will end up with higher numbers.

– According to the IPCC, all emissions matter. We are already seeing, and being affected by, the impacts of climate change. These include rising temperatures, rising sea levels and more extreme events such as more intense heatwaves and heavier rainfall. The effects are increasing rapidly with emissions, he continues.

“Following Putin’s lead”

Green Party spokesperson Daniel Helldén is also outraged by Jimmie Åkesson’s comments and says he has “got the whole climate issue backwards“.

Helldén also makes repeated attempts to link the SD leader with Russia and Vladimir Putin because Russian gas and oil exports are said to benefit if the EU does not invest heavily in “green” energy.

– It would strengthen the states that we are now trying to arm ourselves against. The policy he is pursuing is really following Putin’s lead. He must be cheering what he is saying.

– Russia’s huge exports of gas and oil are higher than the aid Europe gives to Ukraine. If the EU were to put the brakes on climate action, Russia could continue exporting. It will be Putin who wins from it, he repeats.

Our independent journalism needs your support!
We appreciate all of your donations to keep us alive and running.

Our independent journalism needs your support!
Consider a donation.

You can donate any amount of your choosing, one-time payment or even monthly.
We appreciate all of your donations to keep us alive and running.

Dont miss another article!

Sign up for our newsletter today!

Take part of uncensored news – free from industry interests and political correctness from the Polaris of Enlightenment – every week.