A vampire’s continued existence depends on the continuous flow of the blood of the living. The same principle animates Tesla and other purveyors of electric cars – who are about to receive another $2 billion-plus from FiatChrysler (FCA) over the course of the next three years.
This ought to stave off bankruptcy long enough to bankrupt legitimate car companies like FCA (which choose not to purvey electric cars, because people aren’t buying them).
After which, the vampire will feast on the blood of us – directly, this time.
The cash infusion is performed via what is styled the “purchase” of carbon credits. These are purchases in the manner of our “contributions” to Social Security – i.e., they are extorted payments made under duress for something the victim would never freely pay for if he had the option to say no. Amazon.com Gift Card i... Best Price: null Buy New $25.00 (as of 07:45 EST - Details)
The “credits” being “purchased” are for electric cars not built by FCA. Instead, FCA pays Elon, et al, to build them and gets the “credit” for the supposed reduction in C02 “emissions” (it takes many italics and air quotes to parse government-speak) achieved thereby.
Supposed “emissions” because the determination is based entirely on what comes out of a car’s exhaust pipe – and of course, electric cars haven’t got one at all and this is why they are regarded as “zero emissions” vehicles (ZEVs) from a regulatory standpoint. But from a factual standpoint – assuming the object of this exercise is a reduction in these C02 “emissions” – the logic is flawed because electric cars produce lots of C02 in the course of their manufacture.
Mining for materials and all the associated processes isn’t an “emissions” free endeavor; in fact, it has been calculated that the much-more-intensive mining/manufacturing involved in obtaining the materials needed for an EV and the actual building of the EV plus the generation of electricity to power the EV produce at least as much C02 as the typical IC car does, just not at the same time – and not at the same place.
This difference in source ought to be a regulatory irrelevance – if “climate change” is a real worry and the object of this exercise is really the reduction of “greenhouse” gasses such as C02.
Of course, it’s not because if it were, EVs would not be considered ZEVs – which they objectively aren’t.
Government regulators actually aren’t idiots, generally speaking. They are, however, despicably dishonest.
They know, among many other things, that “zero emissions” EVs is a fraud. But it’s one that serves a purpose and so the fraud is overlooked – for now.
Until the purpose has been realized.