Are electric cars (EC) really greener and eco-friendly? They seem to be a great solution to fight climate change and they are even said to have zero emissions. But are they worth it? Is it true that they are harmless to the planet?

“Climate change is, quite simply, an existential threat for most life on the planet – including, and specially, the life of humankind.”

Said António Guterres, the Secretary-General the United Nations, in May 2018. But he’s not standing alone. From the IPCC to NASA, WWF or CDP, all these important entities agree on this phenomena’s spin-off and are committed to fighting it.

From the loss of sea ice and the increase in sea levels to the occurrence of extreme events such as hurricanes, droughts or intensive heat waves, it’s hard to deny the dimension of what we are fighting here. And there’s more to come if we reach the temperature increase of 2° Celsius.

In an attempt to minimize these consequences, scientists have been looking into what may be the main causes of climate change. They found out that greenhouse gases (GHG) like carbon dioxide, methane or nitrous oxide, and aerosols are changing the atmosphere and leaving the planet more exposed.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) pointed out that of the 49 Gt Co2 eq released into the atmosphere in 2010, 14% was released by transportation vehicles. And despite being already a big number, this doesn’t even consider the Co2 impact of complementary activities such as manufacturing vehicles or getting road surfaces worn.

As cars make up 72% of the Co2 emissions in this sector (followed by planes, with 10%), the market of electric cars has been growing and seems to be a good solution to fight climate change. But is it true that EVs have zero emissions?

Are Electric Greener Than Fossil Fuel Powered Cars?

The fundamental difference between conventional, thermal cars and electric cars has to do with the process of transforming the potential (stored) energy into kinetic (movement) energy.  In thermal cars, this energy is stored in a chemical form and is released through a chemical reaction inside the engine.

On the other hand, despite also having chemically stored energy, electric cars release it electrochemically without any kind of combustion, thanks to lithium-ion batteries. This means that there is no fuel being burned and therefore no air pollution through CO2 happening while driving. They are also more efficient than fossil cars. So is this a clear win for the electric movement? Are electric cars and vehicles greener?

Not necessarily. Or better said, not always. If the source of energy to power these cars doesn’t come from solar panels, wind turbines or even nuclear or hydroelectric, their CO2 emissions will be much higher. For instance, if the electricity used to charge cars comes from the burning of fossil fuels, it doesn’t matter if the EC are not polluting while being driven, as this pollution was already released in some distant power plant.

This means that if you’re driving an electric car in the US, where fossil fuels accounted 62,7% of the country’s energy production in 2017, you’ll probably release more CO2 into the atmosphere than if you’re driving it in Iceland, that runs almost entirely on hydro, geothermal and solar energy.

As for the UE28, forecasts are encouraging, being expected that the EU grid mix will come down from 300gCO2 eq/km in 2015 to 200gCO2 eq/km in 2030, and 80gCO2 eq/km in 2050. But let’s assume a scenario where cars are 100% powered with renewable or clean energy. Could we then say electric cars have zero emissions?

Does The Manufacturing Of Electric Cars Have Zero Emissions? How Eco-Friendly Is The Process?

The cycle of making a car starts with raw materials being extracted, refined, transported, and manufactured into several components that will be assembled to produce the car itself. This process is very much the same in both conventional and electric cars. Nevertheless, at the end of the manufacturing process, electric cars are the ones generating more carbon emissions, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Why is this? Because electric cars store energy in large batteries (the larger they are, the bigger their range is) that have high environmental costs. This happens because these batteries are made of rare earth elements (REE) like lithium, nickel, cobalt, or graphite that only exist beneath the surface of the Earth and therefore depend on mining activities with very polluting processes. That’s why asking whether electric cars are greener or not does come with an easy answer.

For instance, to produce 1 ton of REE, 75 tons of acid waste (that isn’t always handled in the right way) and 1 ton of radioactive residues are also made, according to the Chinese Society of Rare Earths. In spite of these pollution issues, research tells us not to worry about the availability of these rare earth elements and when it comes to lithium, there is data estimating enough worldwide reserves for the next 185 years, even if the EC market triples, according to the Deutsche Bank. As for cobalt, graphite, and nickel, they also seem to be in a comfortable situation, since the demand for the years to come is expected to stay far away from the reserves Earth has to offer. Although it looks like everything will work out just fine, let’s not forget the negative environmental impact of extracting REEs.

Apart from the weight of the REE, the energy used to produce the batteries themselves is also responsible for nearly half of their environmental impact since most of this energy doesn’t come from low carbon sources. Nevertheless, forecasts show that the electricity generation is improving and there are more renewable sources entering the grid, which would help decrease the ecological footprint of building up these batteries.

On the other hand, developing renewable energy systems has its impact as well, again using energy and REE. In the end, we should be reasonable about this and despite their initial footprint, the impact of lithium-ion batteries, when compared to conventional cars, is offset within 6 to 16 months of average driving (using clean energy) in the US or 2 years in the EU. From this moment on, EC keep being a better eco-alternative to conventional cars until their battery gets to the end of its life cycle. But what happens next? How are lithium-ion batteries being handled when they’re no longer useful for electric cars?

Where Do Electric Cars’ Batteries Go To? Are They Recycled In An Eco-Friendly Way?

No, electric cars are not zero-emissions vehicles. We have seen that although they do not emit CO2 while being driven, they might do it in 3 other stages: during manufacturing, energy production, and at the end of their life cycle. In the first case, the need for mining activities to extract the rare earth metals that are used in batteries is very energy-consuming and polluting.

As for energy production, if the car is being powered with energy from burning fossil fuels, it is still releasing CO2 in the atmosphere, not from the tailpipe but from some distant power plant. When it comes to batteries being recycled, it is still an expensive and ongoing process and most batteries are not being recycled yet.

In spite of this, solutions to make electric cars greener and more eco-friendly, and sustainable are being developed. And although there is room for improvement, we have also seen that electric cars, as they are today, are already, in general, more eco-friendly along their lifecycle than the conventional fossil fuel cars, especially if they are powered with clean electricity. Some countries are already realizing this and that’s why they are fostering the growth of the electric cars market, mostly by giving fiscal benefits that make the cars economically more competitive. In fact, countries like Norway, Germany, or Costa Rica are simultaneously increasing their bet on renewable energies and setting deadlines for the end of conventional cars in their roads.

But in the end, are electric vehicles the solution for our sustainability problem on mobility? We are running to avoid the 2° Celsius temperature increase and prevent the bad consequences of climate change from happening. But is preventing the bad the same as planning for the best?

We have REE for some time but do we truly have enough for the long run? UN forecasts are that 68% of the world population will live in urban areas in 2050, so issues like traffic, parking, and high consumption rates will need to be managed as well.

The truth is that public transportation is a better option than using individual vehicles if we want to lower our carbon footprint, so shouldn’t we be more worried about reinventing it? At the same time, some scientists say that the sharing economy of cars, or even motorbikes or bicycles, will be the next stage in the evolution of mobility, with new business models already being developed. Let’s embrace the change?

Source: https://youmatter.world/en/are-electric-cars-eco-friendly-and-zero-emission-vehicles-26440/

The post Are Electric Cars Really Greener? first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The post Covid-19 causes steepest recession in Latin America and the Caribbean first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

WASHINGTON — The United States withdrew on Tuesday from the world’s most important human rights body in protest of its frequent criticism of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. It was the latest effort by the Trump administration to pull away from international organizations and agreements that it finds objectionable.

It was the first time a member has voluntarily left the United Nations Human Rights Council. The United States now joins Iran, North Korea and Eritrea as the only countries that refuse to participate in the council’s meetings and deliberations.

“Earlier this year, as it has in previous years, the Human Rights Council passed five resolutions against Israel — more than the number passed against North Korea, Iran and Syria combined,” Nikki R. Haley, the American ambassador to the United Nations, said in a speech on Tuesday. “This disproportionate focus and unending hostility toward Israel is clear proof that the council is motivated by political bias, not by human rights.”

“If the Human Rights Council is going to attack countries that uphold human rights and shield countries that abuse human rights, then America should not provide it with any credibility,” Ms. Haley said.

Human rights advocates denounced the decision.

“All this administration seems to care about when it comes to the council is defending Israel,” said John Sifton, an advocacy director at Human Rights Watch, a nonprofit organization. “If the Trump administration’s complaint is that the council is biased and flawed, they’ve just made it more so.”

In a series of posts on Twitter, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel welcomed the decision. “The U.S. decision to leave this prejudiced body is an unequivocal statement that enough is enough,” he wrote on Tuesday.

But Antonio Guterres, the United Nations secretary general, said through a spokeswoman that he would have preferred that the United States remained in the council. He noted that the United Nations’ human rights “architecture” plays an important role in the promotion and protection of human rights worldwide.

Conservatives have been complaining about the council since its inception in 2006, and the administration of President George W. Bush refused to join the body, citing concerns of bias. Ms. Haley has been a fierce critic of the council since joining the Trump administration and is known to have pushed for a withdrawal.

Elliott Abrams, a former Republican diplomat and now a senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, said that the Human Rights Council’s bias against Israel was too much to ignore.

“There is always an argument for staying, which is that the United States will be in a better position to help defend Israel,” Mr. Abrams said. “But this council is hopelessly compromised, so leaving is the right choice.”

The withdrawal comes as the Trump administration faces condemnation by rights groups and governments worldwide for its decision to separate children from their families at the border. On Monday, Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein, the United Nations High Commissioner for human rights, called for an immediate end to the practice, describing such a tactic as inflicting “abuse on children” and “unconscionable.”

Mr. Trump has turned decades of American foreign policy on its head by attacking or undermining much of the rules-based order that the United States established after World War II. Previous administrations viewed the interlocking network of alliances, trade rules and international organizations as beneficial to the United States.

But Mr. Trump has ripped up the Paris climate accord and the Iran nuclear deal — both of which were negotiated under the strong influence of world powers. He has also imposed tariffs on the United States’ closest allies and left the Group of 7 summit meeting this month in chaos and recriminations after he denounced Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada as “very dishonest & weak.”

The Trump administration has made clear that it will not countenance the level of criticism and what it describes as slanted resolutions by the Human Rights Council that have historically been directed at the United States and Israel. On her first day as ambassador, Ms. Haley warned that “for those who don’t have our back, we’re taking names.”

Rob Berschinski, a senior vice president at Human Rights First, another nonprofit organization, conceded that no one believed the human rights council was perfect. But, he said, leaving it is a mistake.

“Countries like China, Russia and Venezuela will applaud this decision because we are freely giving up leverage over them that we previously had,” Mr. Berschinski said.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/us/politics/trump-israel-palestinians-human-rights.html

The post Trump Administration Withdraws U.S. From U.N. Human Rights Council first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The post Germany, France urge Russia to pressure Syria for ‘immediate’ ceasefire first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

---

MUNICH — The head of NATO has said the alliance is determined to avoid a new arms race with Russia, but he warned that Moscow is developing new nuclear weapons that pose a threat to the West.

“Russia is modernizing its nuclear capabilities, developing new nuclear systems, and increasing the role of nuclear weapons in its military strategy. This is a cause for real concern,” NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg told delegates Friday at the three-day Munich Security Conference.

Political and military leaders from across the world are gathered in the southern German city to discuss defense issues, amid growing doubts over the future of the current global order.

Stoltenberg said NATO is determined to avoid a new Cold War. He welcomed the European Union’s embryonic plans to cooperate more closely on defense, under an agreement signed in December known as PESCO, or Permanent Structured Cooperation.

“They are an opportunity to further strengthen the European pillar within NATO and contribute better burden sharing. But with opportunity comes risk. The risk of weakening the trans-Atlantic bond, the risk of duplicating what NATO is already doing,” Stoltenberg said Friday.

Trans-Atlantic and European

The United States has echoed those concerns in recent weeks. However, Germany’s Defense Minister Ursula Von Der Leyen told the conference that such fears were misplaced.

“We want to stay trans-Atlantic in our outlook, but also become more European. A start has been made. Last December we finally launched plans for a European Defense Union. In a way we started out on the political path toward working on a European army.”

Washington repeatedly has called for European allies to boost defense spending.

U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis was present Friday in Munich, but will not address the conference.

Mixed American signals

Analyst and Professor James Davis of the University of Saint Gallen in Switzerland, who is participating in the conference, says the U.S. is sending mixed signals to its allies.

“We’ve got Americans ramping up their presence along the eastern flank of NATO. And so, at the level of commitment, real commitment of American capabilities, there seems to be actually a re-engagement. But at the political level, at the level of political leadership, strategic leadership, I think people sense the lack of voice,” Davis told VOA.

Meanwhile, the United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres said the brinkmanship over North Korea’s nuclear program can be defused.

“I would say the two key stakeholders in relation to this crisis, the United States and North Korea, are able to come together and to have a meaningful discussion on these issues. I believe the United States is ready to do so, and recent statements by the Vice President [Mike Pence] demonstrate that it’s absolutely essential to keep the pressure over North Korea and to convince North Korea that it is absolutely vital for them to come to the table and to be able to find a way for this denuclearization, the peaceful denuclearization, of the Korean Peninsula to be possible.”

U.S. National Security Adviser H. R. McMaster is also to speak at the conference Saturday, and he is expected to address concerns over North Korea’s nuclear program and the United States’ commitment to NATO.

---

Source: https://www.voanews.com/a/nato-chief-warns-nuclear-threat-north-korea-russia-/4258770.html

[Disclaimer]

The post NATO Chief Warns of Growing Nuclear Threat From North Korea, Russia first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The letter, addressed to U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres spoke of the sports diplomacy as a “dramatic turning point” for peace, stability and national reconciliation on the Korean peninsula where a “touch-and-go war danger” prevails.

That said, the letter said “U.S. authorities are misleading public opinion as if the inter-Korean dialogue is an outcome of their harshest sanctions and pressure,” intentionally aggravating the situation by introducing nuclear powered aircraft carrier strike groups in the vicinity.”

The letter warned that the U.S. movement of military reinforcements is a “primary factor” that would block the reconciliation process and push the peninsula “into an unpredictable dangerous phase.”

Although the North’s missile and nuclear tests have been halted for an Olympic reprieve, this week CIA Director Mike Pompeo warned that North Korea could have a nuclear weapon capable of striking the United States within “a handful of months,” adding that the Trump administration’s stance on North Korea had yielded, “a seriousness and a progress” in dealing with the threat from Pyongyang “that has never been achieved before.”

The letter arrived as North Korea’s 22 athletes traveled to South Korea for the Feb. 9-25 games in Pyeongchang and female hockey players were set to form the the first joint team with South Korean athletes.

North Korea’s protest was a reflection of  one of the most powerful moments in President Trump’s State of the Union address Tuesday night, when a young man stood and proudly waved the crutches he used during a perilous escape from North Korea. Mr. Trump used Ji Seong-ho’s amazing journey to highlight the cruelty of the North Korean regime and make the case that it must not be allowed to build a nuclear arsenal.

Ben Tracy reported that the president’s comments during the State of the Union renewed the focus on North Korea tension.

North Korea figured prominently in a lunch hosted this week at the White House of the president and U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley and U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson with the U.N. Security Council. Mr. Trump said he is now willing to consider diplomatic talks with North Korea, though he has also said in the past that such talks would be a waste of time.

North Korea’s latest missive, accusing the U.S. of “throwing a wet blanket over our efforts” calls for the U.N. to convene a Security Council meeting to welcome the improved inter-Korean relations.

Pamela Falk is CBS News Foreign Affairs Analyst and an international lawyer, based at the United Nations.

Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-is-throwing-a-wet-blanket-over-our-efforts-north-korea-tells-un/

The post “U.S. is throwing a wet blanket over our efforts,” North Korea tells U.N. first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

Antisémitisme
AFP

‘Anti-Semitism is the dangerous fuel feeding our enemies for generations’, diaspora minister said

The Ministry of Diaspora Affairs released a report on Sunday that noted an increase in anti-Semitic sentiment throughout 2017 attributing the rise of the far-right and the refugee crisis as triggering factors.

“Anti-Semitism is the dangerous fuel feeding our enemies for generations. We must ensure every Jew in the world can live a safe and proud life,” Diaspora Minister Naftali Bennett is quoted as saying in the press release.

“In 2017 we saw a strong anti-Semitic presence online,” he added. “Much of this discourse was related to the changes in governments around the world, the refugee crisis and the visibility of anti-Semitism in social media. We must act with all available tools against current anti-Semitism to ensure the security of the Jewish people, in Israel and the Diaspora.”

Manifestation contre l’antisémitisme
AFP 

“The refugee population is becoming a risk factor for Jewish communities. Over 50% of refugees in Western Europe hold anti-Semitic views and opinions,” the report stated.

Presented ahead of Holocaust Remembrance Day to be marked on January 27, the report also noted that a new edition of Adolf Hitler’s manifesto Mein Kampf had become a bestseller in German bookstores in 2017.

In the UK, the press release said that there was a record number of anti-Semitic incidents citing an overall 30 percent rise in such events and specifically a 78 percent increase in physical attacks against Jews. There has also been a rising tide of criticism targeting leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn for not tackling anti-Semitism effectively within his party.

France has witnessed a barrage of anti-Semitic related incidents. In December five people were charged over a brutal attack on a Jewish family in a Parisian suburb, the gang reportedly told the family “you’re Jewish, so you have money.” In November, a French socialist politicians Gerard Filoche was criticized for tweeting a highly anti-Semitic image of three high-profile European Jews. Several kosher restaurants were also victims of arson attacks.

The Netherlands banned the sale of Adolf Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” in 1974 
TOBIAS SCHWARZ (AFP) 

The Diaspora Ministry report also cited a Pew survey across 18 European countries that found 20% of Europeans aren’t interested in accepting Jews in their countries, 30% wouldn’t want Jews as neighbors, and 22% of Romanians and 18% of Poles would like to revoke the citizenship of local Jews.

Addressing an audience at Park East Synagogue in New York on Saturday, United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres warned against all forms of discrimination, including anti-Semitism reported the Jerusalem Post. He made reference to Neo-Nazi groups and said the world must “stand together against the normalization of hate.”

Germany, for example, has taken steps to deal with the phenomenon, only last week the German parliament approved a series of measures including introducing the role of an anti-Semitism commissioner. Another amendment addressed anti-Semitic sentiment amongst migrants that, when the government was reviewing deportation claims, would account for evidence of discriminatory views.

---

Source: https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/165722-180121-2017-report-pins-growth-of-antisemitism-on-refugee-crisis-and-far-right-rise

[Disclaimer]

The post 2017 report pins growth of antisemitism on refugee crisis and far-right rise first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.