Featuring: manufacturing, mining, exploitation, environmental and ecosystem destruction, silicon, polysilicon, polymers, plastics, silver, cobalt, child labor, graphite, coal, rare earths, steel, Nickel, Sulfur Hexafluoride, Copper, Concrete, Lithium, Tin, Cadmium, and Lead
Convening in the French city of Strasbourg on Wednesday, MEPs passed a measure that would require automakers to cut carbon emissions by 100 per cent by 2035, effectively prohibiting the future sale of new combustion engine cars across the 27 member states.
The legislation would also ban the sale of hybrid vehicles, which still use some gas, after a measure to protect them from the centre-right European People’s Party was struck down. The EPP also failed to pass an amendment to take the total carbon emissions involved in the production of a vehicle into account, Euractiv reported.
Hailing the vote, the EU’s environmental committee chair Pascal Canfin wrote: “This position of the European Parliament is an important victory and consistent with our objective of climate neutrality.”
Estimates from the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association state that currently only 18 per cent of cars driven in the EU last year were either electric or hybrids, meaning that the people of Europe will have to radically change their driving preferences over the next decade to conform with the proclivities of left-wing lawmakers.
French MEP Agnes Evren of the European People’s Party said that the move would “condemn industrial activity and strongly penalise consumers”.
Evren argued that the legislation would prevent electric car alternatives, such as high-performance hybrids and those that use biofuels from coming to market, despite their potential to be even more climate-friendly than electric cars, which often still require energy produced from coal or natural gas to run.
Indeed, many have criticised the effectiveness of electric cars, which also require vast amounts of energy to produce including the extraction of rare earth minerals for their batteries, in actually reducing carbon emissions.
The director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, Bjørn Lomborg has previously argued that while electric cars are “branded as environmentally friendly,” the reality is that “generating the electricity they require almost always involves burning fossil fuels.”
The former director of the Danish government’s Environmental Assessment Institute also noted that the massive energy needed to produce the batteries for electric cars means that they start “saving emissions only after being driven 60,000 kilometres.”
Despite the cost and the limitations of electric cars, they have become a cause de jour of globalist politicians in the West. In 2020, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced under his Build Back Better agenda that the UK would seek a similar ban on combustion engines by the year 2030, earmarking £2.8 billion in taxpayer money to subsidise the electric car industry.
During the same year, left-wing Democrat governor of California Gavin Newsom also banned gas-powered vehicle sales in the state by the year 2025.
Amid the growing fuel crisis in the United States following a swath of anti-fossil fuel measures implemented by President Joe Biden and the supply chain shocks of lockdown policies and the war in Ukraine, the ageing Democrat president has urged Americans to switch to electric cars to avoid high gas prices at the pump.
Widespread adoption of electric cars continues to be limited due to long waiting lists for popular options like Tesla, the limited range of batteries, the lack of charging point stations, as well as prohibitively high costs for many average people.
...We received a response from the Ministry of Agriculture to the story of the new absurdity of the Croatian bureaucracy in the form of banning hoes to farmers.
We remind you that the Croatian Association of Organic Producers (HSEP) 30.5. On his official website, he called on Croatian institutions regarding the Strategic Plan of the Republic of Croatia within the framework of the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), that under the measure "Mechanical weed control within perennial plantations" the use of hoes is literally prohibited.
In response to the Index, the Ministry confirms that the hoe is no longer desirable, but they say that this does not mean that its use is prohibited, but that the financial support is no longer realized in that case.
...The Ministry of Agriculture claims that due to the raising of intensive plantations with high planting density due to the small distance between planting rows, weed removal is "impossible" with "usual" machinery and attachments, which is why special machines and tools (equipment) with lateral displacement must be used so no tree or reed damage would occur during operation.
The hoe is obviously not a good enough tool to remove weeds, and the Ministry of Agriculture is trying to explain why.
Users of the measure are expected to remove weeds with attachments such as mulchers, brushes and other tractor attachments. They are allowed by this measure.
It should be noted that it should be borne in mind that the amount that the beneficiary can earn, which is a grant in the form of an annual payment per unit area, is calculated on the basis of additional costs or lost income.
The costs of additional mechanization are considered permissible, as well as the services of an external contractor, and "the hoe as a tool in this sense is not part of eligible mechanization, ie can not be included in agricultural machinery or attachments based on which the aid is calculated."
"This does not mean that the use of a hoe is prohibited, only that the same is not supported," the Ministry of Agriculture explains.
They consider it justified that the destruction of weeds is carried out by mechanization, because in that way the real cost and compensation for the same can be expressed. It is noted that such operations are voluntary and all those who enter them accept the obligations prescribed by them.
This operation supports farmers to mechanically destroy weeds without using herbicides, in order to increase productivity. "It is unlikely that using a hoe will increase productivity, especially in conditions of labor shortage," the ministry concluded.
It is stated that the proposal of the operation "Mechanical destruction of weeds within the ranks of perennial plantations (MUK)" was made by an independent body in 2017 and has been implemented for several years, so there is nothing new in the Strategic Plan 2023-2027.
We have checked several official documents of the EU institutions to check how they define the use of the hoe.
The European Innovation Partnership on Agriculture (EIP-AGRI) in its report entitled "Non-Chemical Weed Control in Field Crop Systems" , published in May 2020, analyzes in detail the possibilities of non-chemical weed control.
Mechanization is often mentioned as a more desirable alternative to the use of chemicals, but it does not only mean connections. Indeed, the necessity to destroy weeds directly by hand is often mentioned, when the use of large attachments is simply not appropriate.
In particular, on page 10, under the subheading "Good practices", under the table entitled "Availability of precise non-chemical weed management options", one of the options is "manual weeding", for individual plants.
There are situations in agriculture, and EU bodies are aware of that, when the use of large connections is not suitable. Indeed, such systems can do more harm than good to certain crops, soil or surface types.
The ban on hoes has revealed all the stupidity of the EU and Croatian bureaucrats
The main media topic regarding agriculture in the last few days has been the hoe. Farmers accuse the state of practically banning it, the state justifies that it did not ban it, but does not give incentives for it...
...Croatian Association of Organic Producers (HSEP) accused the Ministry of Agriculture of banning the use of hoes in connection with the measure "Mechanical weed control within perennial crops", which is part of the strategic plan of the Republic of Croatia under the Common Agricultural Policy CAP) of the European Union.
The revolt of organic farmers stemmed from the fact that they could not receive a subsidy of 373.33 euros per hectare (about 2,700 kuna) for the use of hoes in agricultural production, but had to buy tractor attachments or pay someone to plow their land with a tractor.
The idea of the measure "Mechanical destruction of weeds within perennial crops" is to reduce the use of pesticides, which is a strategic goal of the European Union, and weeds are removed mechanically, with various types of tractor attachments. The measure is not intended for organic farmers, it can be used by everyone.
...The goal of the European Union is to reduce the use of pesticides by 50 percent by 2030, according to the Green Deal plan, the so-called green policies. To achieve this, it is willing to spend billions of euros to encourage farmers not to use pesticides.
This literally subsidizes unproductivity because pesticides prevent large crop losses, and it is much more expensive and slower to mechanically remove weeds with tractor attachments. According to the measure we are discussing now in Croatia, the European Union is ready to give more than 300 euros a year per hectare to all those who stop using pesticides.
The fact is that on a large part of agricultural land in Croatia, only large mechanization cannot be used, either due to the nature of the soil, the configuration of the terrain or something else. It is difficult to push the entire tractor attachment into hundred-year-old olive groves along the coast without doing much damage. A hoe is sometimes a necessity.
But all this from the side, the explanation of the Ministry of Agriculture why it is not allowed to subsidize hoes, no matter how ridiculous the idea was, and it is allowed to subsidize tractor attachments, is really contradictory.
The Ministry of Agriculture only admits that the measure literally subsidizes unproductiveness because the use of mechanization instead of pesticides "can show the real cost and compensation for the same", and in the next paragraph they claim that it provides support to mechanically destroy weeds without herbicides to increase their productivity, and how "it is unlikely that using a hoe will increase productivity".
It is a strange measure, a goal that is at the same time to compensate for costs due to loss of productivity (costs per unit are included in the calculation of productivity), and at the same time it tries to increase productivity. Confusion is heightened by the claim that the hoe does not increase productivity, so it is not part of the measure, although the intention of the measure is not to increase productivity, but quite the opposite.
Bureaucratic entanglements, Kafkaesque nightmares, contradictions within contradictions. Ultimately, this is just another proof of how excessive bureaucracy, formalism and central management of the economy lead to loss of productivity, stupid rules, bizarre demands and generally tragicomic situations.
But these tragicomic situations become dangerous over time if they accumulate. The ordinance is added to the ordinance, the loss increases, the total cost rises, and ultimately agriculture collapses, the economy collapses, and the price of a modest hoe skyrockets.
There are no problems with someone wanting to buy “eco” food, although the use of chemicals such as pesticides is also allowed in organic food production. But such food usually has lower yields and is therefore more expensive. The price mechanism does its thing and if the size of the crop is sacrificed for the sake of that "eco", it can be seen in the price.
He who can and wants, let him pay. Fortunately, today people in the US, the European Union and other most developed parts of the world are rich enough to be able to pay extra for products produced in an unproductive way, labeled “eco”, “green”, “natural” or whatever they like. People are entitled to luxury if they can pay for it, of course.
But to actively subsidize such production at the level of the whole agriculture, from taxpayers' money to cover the inefficiency of those farmers who produce for the richest in society, for whom food has become more a status symbol, a way of moralizing and signaling virtues, is harmful, stupid and ultimately dangerous.
The modest hoe has become a symbol of harmful bureaucratization, the separation of politicians and officials from reality, and the decadence of the richest societies of the 21st century.
Rich, privileged (white) eco-fanatic says her group is thinking about "how to " blow up huge African oil pipeline!
Adding to what I shared above, and to make things worse, the EU Parliament also approved what's called the Ferrari amendment, in essence an exemption on supercars. Basically, manufacturers that produce up to 1,000 fossil fuel cars per year, such as Bugatti, will be exempt from the ban while those who produce up to 10,000 cars will have 1 more year than others, i.e. 2036. You just can't make this stuff up!Last week, the EU Parliament approved a measure to ban the sale of petrol and diesel cars by 2035 across the 27 member states. This is another push towards the net zero carbon agenda, in itself a contradiction given the fact that electric cars still need fossil fuels to generate the electricity and also involve the extraction of rare earth minerals for the batteries. Looks like the politicians are really clueless.
The so-called “Ferrari” amendment exempts all manufacturers producing under 1,000 units per year from the EU-wide ban on sales of combustion-engine vehicles in 2035, and gives a one-year reprieve to manufacturers registering up to 10,000 new cars a year. Supercars and other gasoline, diesel or hybrid cars produced by Ferrari and the likes could therefore continue to be sold up to 2036, or even beyond for niche manufacturers.
The amendment states that manufacturers registering fewer than 1,000 new vehicles in a calendar year will be exempt from the greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements that will apply to other automakers. It goes on to state manufacturers newly registering between 1,000 and 10,000 passenger cars or between 1,000 and 22,000 light commercial vehicles in a calendar year should see the possibility of applying for an exemption from their specific emissions targets removed from 2036 onwards.
In the end, this is only likely to apply to a few manufacturers, assuming, of course, that Ferrari and likes do not convert their entire ranges to electric vehicles before that time.
However, nothing is certain yet, since this regulation must yet be approved by the Council of the European Union — with or without this amendment — as part of a legislative process beginning in the coming weeks. It will then be up to each Member State to ensure that this decision is enforced throughout its territory.
Adding to what I shared above, and to make things worse, the EU Parliament also approved what's called the Ferrari amendment, in essence an exemption on supercars. Basically, manufacturers that produce up to 1,000 fossil fuel cars per year, such as Bugatti, will be exempt from the ban while those who produce up to 10,000 cars will have 1 more year than others, i.e. 2036. You just can't make this stuff up!
Basically, manufacturers that produce up to 1,000 fossil fuel cars per year, such as Bugatti, will be exempt from the ban while those who produce up to 10,000 cars will have 1 more year than others