Photo 2018 me doing cartwheels in Moray, Peru - my happy place!
In part one, I talked about Guardian Seeds, farming & growing food, all Earth Elements. I also mentioned the “war” on carbon. What I forgot to mention was WE are a carbon-based lifeform. About 97% of the mass of the human body is made up of 5 elements: 65% oxygen, 18% carbon, 10% hydrogen, 3% nitrogen, 1.3% calcium and the remaining % being trace elements. This month, I’ll focus on the other 3 elements – Air, Water & Fire - in relation to the environment.
“If you did your research, you’re considered a conspiracy theorist.”
~ Russell Brand
The Air/Wind Element: Weather Modification, Chemtrails & Blocking the Sun
While the scientific community has dismissed chemtrails, there is a history of weather manipulation experiments…and I’m chemtrail curious.
Cloud Seeding
On November 13, 1946 pilot Curtis Talbot, working for the General Electric Research Laboratory, climbed to an altitude of 14,000 feet about 30 miles east of Schenectady, New York. Talbot, along with scientist Dr. Vincent J. Schaefer, released 3 pounds of dry ice (frozen carbon dioxide) into the clouds. As they turned south, Dr. Schaefer noted, “I looked toward the rear and was thrilled to see long streamers of snow falling from the base of the cloud through which we had just passed. I shouted to Curt to swing around, and as we did so we passed through a mass of glistening snow crystals! Needless to say, we were quite excited.” They had created the world’s first human-made snowstorm. In March 2022, CNN reported on this very same thing!
Cloud seeding is not a new invention. It’s been around for decades! In the early 1950’s early cloudbusting experiments were performed by Austrian psychoanalyst Wilhelm Reich (1897-1957). A cloudbuster is a device which Reich claimed could produce rain by manipulating what he called “orgone energy” present in the atmosphere.
During those early experiments for GE, Nobel prize winning physicist Dr. Irving Langmuir said: “Rainmaking” or weather control can be as powerful a war weapon as the atom bomb. He continued, “the government should seize on the phenomenon of weather control as it did on atomic energy when Albert Einstein told the late President Roosevelt in 1939 of the potential power of an atom-splitting weapon. In the amount of energy liberated, the effect of 30 milligrams of silver iodide under optimum conditions equals that of one atomic bomb.”
In 1956, Dr. Walter Russell was writing of the potential for complete weather control. In the 1960s, Dr. Bernard Vonnegut vastly improved the techniques by employing silver iodide crystals in the cloud-seeding mixture. (Silver iodide's hygroscopic qualities ensure water particles quickly bond with its crystalline structure.)
From 1967 to 1972, the US Air Force ran Operation Popeye, a highly classified rainmaking program. The story broke in The New York Times that Henry Kissinger went over the Secretary of Defenses’ head to weaponize the weather.
The US Air Force document explains that weather modification (or the use of weather as a weapon) will allow them to cause Nations to have to adhere to certain demands with their weather modification technology already developed by denying rain and causing droughts or holding rain in place and causing floods as well as manipulating the air layers to cause more severe tornadoes and other extreme weather events. The document is called "Weather As A Force Multiplier: Owning The Weather in 2025."
You can even visit the Canadian government website to view the weather & climate collaboration treaty signed in the late 70s with the USA regarding weather manipulation. Here’s the original document for all to see.
Chemtrails
What if it’s not just silver iodide rods released to manipulate the weather? Check out this video. What if these pilots are spraying the air with other substances like toxic chemicals, biological agents, or even mind-altering compounds?
Chemtrails and contrails are both related to aircraft emissions but have different origins and implications. Contrails, short for "condensation trails" or vapor trails, are essentially human-made clouds. Most commercial jets have a cruising altitude of 30,000 to 45,000 feet or 6-8 miles straight up. Contrails are formed when hot, humid exhaust from the engine mixes with cold air and the large volumes of water vapor instantly freeze condensing into tiny ice crystals, forming a visible cloud-like trail behind the aircraft. This happens at very high altitudes. Lower altitude aircraft don’t create them. Contrails are a natural byproduct of aviation and typically dissipate relatively quickly, depending on atmospheric conditions.
On the other hand, chemtrails, refer to the belief that some aircraft are deliberately spraying harmful chemicals or substances into the atmosphere for undisclosed purposes. Proponents of the chemtrail theory argue that these trails persist longer in the sky, spread out, and contain substances like toxic chemicals, biological agents or even mind-altering compounds.
What are they Spraying? Check out this California Chemtrail Information. I’m not going to list the 36 chemicals & metals here but you can follow the link to see the Chemtrail Cocktail list.
Utah & North Dakota have been seeding since the 70’s and 80’s. Wyoming started cloud seeding in 2003 as part of a study. They started doing it in an official capacity after their 10-year study proved it works.
Even a UK-based travel company, Oliver’s Travels, is offering couples a guaranteed “perfect wedding day” sold as a rain-free destination package. It only costs $150,000 for a sunny day!
Back in 2022, CNN wrote about China using cloud seeding to replenish its Yangtze River which not only supplies water for 830,000 people and irrigates 644,667 hectares of farmland/crops, it provides cargo shipping routes & hydroelectric power to their country’s economics. It’s not just China, rivers are drying up all around the planet.
According The Expose 2024 article, there is a lot of “evidence surrounding geoengineering operations. A research paper by the US Air Force written in 1996 describes how geoengineering operations and dispersing nanoparticle technology would allow the military to own the weather.”
The Air Force 2025 study or forecast was conducted in response to a directive from the chief of staff of the US Air Force “to examine the concepts, capabilities, and technologies the United States will require to remain the dominant air and space force in the future.”
Here is some video footage of what intentional weather modification operations look like. BTW carbon black dust is a toxic substance when inhaled.
Here is a list of 100 US patents relating to chemtrails, geoengineering & weather modification. Not included on that list is patent US2022/0002159A1, dated 1/6/2022, for 3D Graphene Oxide (GO) Nanoparticles for cloud seeding. Note the date. Nanotechnology may sound familiar because I mentioned nanoparticles in The Great Gaslighting musings and the European Parliament alleges that GO is in the covid shot. Something to make a mental note of as more and more is revealed.
Some states are taking this very seriously, like Tennessee and New Hampshire. Yay NH! Bill NH HB1700 dated 12/19/2023 was introduced in the 2024 house session. The bill is titled: Prohibiting the intentional release of polluting emissions, including cloud seeding, weather modification, excessive electromagnetic radio frequency, and microwave radiation and making penalties for violation of such prohibition. While this bill is still being reviewed and NH Gov Sununu has not signed it yet, the intention is to legitimize the possibility of chemtrails. A group petitioned Texas lawmakers last year to consider a similar measure. And just last month, Senators Steve Southerland & Monty Fritts of TN successfully introduced a bill in the Senate highlighting concerns regarding the potential for geoengineering experiments within Tennessee’s borders. So, my question…is it still a conspiracy theory when 2 states have introduced legislation to ban it?
For more information about how geoengineering affects people and the environment, follow Geoengineering Watch. If you’d like to take action, get legislation in your state.
They report chemtrails are a crazy conspiracy theory. But it's also well documented that geo-engineering & weather modification is a great way to combat global warming. Chemtrails. Cloud seeding. (It’s like when a celebrity is asked about using Ozempic and denies it because they are using another weight loss drug like Mounjaro or Wegovy.) Nomenclature matters! So, I think it’s important to firstly, raise awareness surrounding the “contrail vs chemtrail” debate.
Whatever you label it – weather modification, cloud seeding, geoengineering (solar radiation management) - there are people who cannot grasp the reality of weather altering devices & technologies. And “lame-stream media” has not helped with what is real and what is not by putting out propaganda to systemically confuse & condition (brainwash) the public…for decades. Most people who were told "that's not real" can't wrap their heads around the concept that despite the name, they're actually the exact same thing.
So, whether or not we are being dosed with airborne chemicals may still be up for debate. However, we do know the list of chemicals mentioned above are detrimental to life on our planet.
Climate experts appear divided on this form of climate intervention because of possible unintended consequences. But many agree it’s a subject worth researching…hence my chemtrail curiosity. Or is it a contrail conspiracy, literally a CON? LOL
97% of Scientists agree with whoever is funding them.
The other 3% are banned from social media.
Sun Blocking to Decrease Warming
Back to clouds…natural clouds are a collection of water droplets and/or ice crystals floating in the sky. Whether natural or man-made, clouds can help warm or cool Earth. Clouds perform a dual role as mirrors or blankets. They can reflect incoming sunlight back out into space for a cooling effect or serve as a blanket and trap heat in the atmosphere producing a warming effect. While the radiative effect is small, Science Systems & Applications Incorporated researchers Sarah Bedka & Douglas Spangenberg, found linear contrails specifically have an overall warming effect. It is the first study that firmly quantifies the contrail effect using satellite data.
Cloud classification labels have been around for a long time, but the way they look has changed drastically over the past 20 years. Today, most clouds you see in the sky are from air traffic (man-made clouds). Spangenberg said, “with increasing air traffic, the effect of contrails has the potential to increase.”
Or maybe…these are all trails of cows farting. Just saying LOL! While Bill Gates has expressed concerns about the environmental impact of cattle due to methane emissions as I mentioned in last month’s musings, this is not a direct quote. Sometimes the memes speak for themselves, and this one cracked me up. Bill Gates says a cow puts off more pollution than a car. Ok Bill, I’ll lock myself in a garage with a cow overnight. You lock yourself in a garage with a running car overnight. We will meet for breakfast in the morning to discuss results.
Side note about gassy emissions…apana is the Sanskrit word for wind. Apanasana pose translates to “wind-relieving” pose (although sometimes called Pavana Muktasana). I call it farting pose in my kids’ yoga classes. So, maybe it's not the cows after all!
Anyway, I like the idea of wind power where turbines harness the energy of air to generate electricity. Wind energy is considered clean & renewable because it doesn’t result in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions like coal, natural gas, or oil. However, some GHG emissions are created in the manufacturing, transportation, and installation of wind turbines. Did you know 2,200 tons of concrete is needed for every “green” wind turbine? Don’t forget to take into account the thermal and electrical energy needed to produce that cement foundation. Concrete that is not removed. Is it reused for a new turbine? On the flip side, wind farms take up a lot of land, they aren’t visually attractive, and are noisy. Are there any negative effects of the noise on animals or people? In addition, their effectiveness is totally weather dependent so a fossil-fuel backup supply would be needed. In addition, steel represents 80% of all the materials used to construct one wind turbine. So, I have more questions…how are these massive turbines being disposed of when they break down or reach the end of their life expectancy? I mean they are extremely large. Are they reusable or recyclable? What is the environmental impact in general? They are built up very high and rotate at high speeds. What is the impact on our feathered, flying friends? Most of you know that I am totally about sustainability. Off-grid living relies on wind energy and solar generators. But where do all those solar panels go? Again, I think it’s important to look at all the pros and cons.
Risk versus Reward
Anyway…cloud seeding is not without its controversy. There are environmental factors to consider, as well as risk-reward ratio. I think a bigger concern is an ethical one.
Geoengineering would offer a unique strategic advantage to the country using it. It could be used to provide rain to drought-stricken areas. Or, to cause destructive droughts which dry up food crops by “overseeding” those same clouds. Used to cause harm, weather control could be directed against our unfriendly nations as retaliation or drive geopolitical conflicts to force millions of people to face water shortages and/or forcing farmers to abandon their fields and migrate to controlled urban centers (i.e. SMART cities), thereby also creating a food crisis.
According to the World Wildlife Fund, two thirds of the world’s population may face water shortages by 2025. Water is one of our most precious assets. One of the mottos in indigenous cultures is “water is life.” If you can control the water including our drinking water, well it could go one of two ways…good or evil. The potential for abuse must be considered.
This is a very important worldwide concern as it affects so many of our other systems - earth and all her inhabitants (vegetation & critters) as well as water & food. I like what 2024 presidential candidate RFK’s newly appointed VP, the mother of an autistic daughter, has to say about the environment: “We have so many toxic substances in our environment, like endocrine disrupting chemicals in our food, water and soil. Like the pesticide residues, the industrial pollutants, the microplastics, the PFAs, the food additives, and forever chemicals that contaminate nearly every human cell. We also have electromagnetic pollution.”
So, I have another question…are people having more allergic reactions to food, water and the air or are they reacting to the chemicals & pesticides? Is there a correlation between increased spraying and increased allergies?
The Water Element
Man-made chemicals taint our air, food, and water supply. Did you know that some of the most common drugs found in tap water are: hormones from birth control, blood thinners, blood pressure medication, antidepressants, mood stabilizers, antibiotics, and PFAs ‘forever chemicals’? While there may only be trace amounts, there is considerable debate about what levels warrant concern. (This is also why I recommend having a good water filtration system – reverse osmosis & carbon filters for example.)
One of those toxic chemicals is aluminum oxide particles. Aluminum is a major culprit in the many illnesses including Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s disease, osteoporosis, schizophrenia as well as ADD & ADHD in children.
Aluminum oxide is a toxic chemical of chemtrail fallout. It is also released into the environment (air & earth) from coal-fired power plants and incinerators in the mining and processing of aluminum ores or the production of aluminum metal, alloys, and compounds. Combined with the fluoride added to water they form aluminum fluoride.
While aluminum fluoride has a myriad of industrial applications, it must be handled with caution. The production process can release harmful compounds into the atmosphere which can have detrimental effects on plant life and aquatic ecosystems. It can be toxic if ingested or inhaled and poses serious health risks to plants, animals, and humans. Fluoride toxicity through chronic exposure has been associated with neurodegenerative diseases like dementia and Alzheimers. Dr. Russell Baylock explains how aluminum affects the brain. Aluminum is used in a huge variety of products including beverage cans, kitchen utensils & foils, window frames, beer kegs, air conditioning units, radiators, airplane parts, and so much more. As long as there is demand for aluminum, aluminum fluoride will continue to be produced and used. (A good reason to switch to glass containers.)
I mentioned fluoride in February’s musings and its effects on the brain, specifically calcification of the pineal gland.
Early in the 20th century, dentists discovered that fluoride reduces cavities. After much debate, it was added to drinking water supplies in the 1940’s. However, historian Frank Zelko points out that it's a profitable way to use a waste byproduct from the production of fertilizer. Frank states: “Many are surprised to learn that unlike the pharmaceutical grade fluoride in their toothpaste, the fluoride in their water is an untreated industrial waste product, one that contains trace elements of arsenic and lead.” For over 75 years, we’ve been told that community water fluoridation is safe. Yet, studies examining safety doesn’t support this belief. A 2020 NIH article suggests that fluoride is a neurotoxin that should be placed in the same category as toxic metals like lead, mercury, and arsenic.
So, what now?
According to the United Nations, the ocean could be the world’s ally against climate change. Their website states: “The ocean generates 50 percent of the oxygen we need, absorbs 25 percent of all carbon dioxide emissions and captures 90 percent of the excess heat generated by these emissions. It is not just ‘the lungs of the planet’ but also its largest ‘carbon sink’ – a vital buffer against the impacts of climate change. The ocean is central to reducing global greenhouse gas emissions and stabilizing the Earth’s climate. However, increasing greenhouse gas emissions have affected the health of the ocean – warming and acidifying seawater – causing detrimental changes to life under water and on land, and reducing the ocean’s ability to absorb carbon dioxide and safeguard life on the planet.“
“Your inability to understand the science
does not make it less true."
~ Jon Stewart
The Fire Element: Solar Energy
And again, we circle back to the clouds. All plants & trees need the sun for photosynthesis. Animals & humans need plants for food and oxygen. We NEED the sun for vitamin D. Solar energy is essential to agriculture (cultivating land, producing crops, and raising livestock). Without the sun, there would be no winds, ocean currents, or clouds to transport water. Without the sun's heat & light, Earth would freeze and life would not exist. Even ancient civilizations built temples to honor the sun because of its life-giving properties.
However, in August 2023 at the World Economic Forum (WEF), the European Union (EU) gave its support to Bill Gates’ “sun-dimming technology” to fight global warming by blocking light from the sun to lower the temperature on Earth. Gates has long advocated using experimental geoengineering to block the sun. He wants to spray calcium carbonate dust into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight out of the atmosphere. Psstt…I hear nuclear fallout is pretty effective at blocking out the sun too.
Solar Energy Pros & Cons
Solar energy - the conversion of sunlight to electricity - does not use fossil fuels, does not produce pollution, nor causes deforestation. It’s an efficient and renewable fuel source. Not only can the sun be used to generate electricity, concentrating solar power technology uses the sun’s heat.
We can harness solar energy by converting sunlight to heat for our greenhouses, heat water, drying & pasteurization of food, power radios, generators & houses. In 15 minutes, the sun radiates as much energy as people use in all forms in an entire year.
However, like wind energy, it is intermittent. When there is no sun (at night or cloudy days) power cannot be generated. For continuous power, you would need another energy source. According to National Geographic, “while both photovoltaic and concentrating solar power can be used virtually anywhere, the equipment they require takes up a lot of space. Installation, except for on existing structures, can have a negative impact on the ecosystem by displacing plants and wildlife. Lastly, the cost to collect, convert and store solar power is very high.”
Most people don’t even consider where their electric power comes from. Fossil fuels, such as coal, oil and natural gas, currently produce most of our electric & engine power. They also produce almost all of our pollution. The United States uses more electricity than any other country, even the entire European Union of 27 nations.
Electric Vehicles Pros & Cons
I started researching electric vehicles (EVs) because my husband’s company wants to be a part of the green agenda. Keep in mind that there are financial incentives for corporations to accept climate policy. Those that work in the field are given company cars. This year, they only offered EVs. Many employees complained about this mandate for all the reasons I will give below. Thankfully, they listened and gave them hybrid options in addition to EVs.
Paul Maric, founder of CarExpert, decided to do a comparison test. He used the all-new petrol BMW 740i and the electric BMW i7 M70 for a 560-mile drive from Melbourne to Sydney, Australia. Same car. Same driving speed. He wanted to know what happens when you get away from home charging, use the public charging network, and the difference in cost & energy consumption, if any.
To summarize the article, the EV consumed a total of 203.03 kWh of energy at a total cost of $131.92. On the other hand, the petrol vehicle consumed 56.16 litres of fuel that cost $117.88 (98 RON priced at $2.099 per litre).
In terms of economy, the EV ended up consuming just over 20 kWh/100km, while the internal combustion car consumed just over 6.0 L/100km.
During the trip, they ended up stopping for just over an hour charging over that road trip, which isn’t too bad, but it was time that could have been spent driving instead of charging.
However, there are other costs that are not mentioned. Consumers are not being given all of the information required to make an informed decision.
An EV car will cost between $30,000 to $80,000 with the average sticker price of $51,532. This is $11,000-$30,000 higher than gas-powered cars. An EV truck runs over $100,000. And a home charging station runs about $10,000.
Do you know that tires on an EV wear out 20% faster and that auto insurance typically costs 45% per year more than a comparable car? Tire wear is primarily attributed to the additional weight of the vehicle compared to an internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle. I contacted my personal insurance agent to ask questions about purchasing an EV. She said that some insurance companies give credit for electric and hybrid cars. Overall, the higher insurance is due to the increased cost of repair due to all the electronics or should you have an accident.
EV driving range can be inaccurate because EVs hate 3 things: high speeds, hills, and cold weather (battery efficiency decreases in non-optimal temperatures). We learned that here in the Northeast with the arctic conditions this year causing hours and hours waiting on charging station lines.
On the other hand, if you drive 25,000 miles/year and charge the vehicle from solar, you are still saving thousands of dollars a year on gas. Also not paying for oil changes, emissions fixes, or brake maintenance will offset the higher cost of tires and insurance. In the end…it’s all cost shifting.
EV Batteries
So, how environmentally friendly are Electric Vehicles (EVs)?
Rechargeable lithium-ion batteries are frequently powered by cobalt – a metal that carries “high financial, environmental, and social costs” according to MIT. Cobalt is a byproduct of the processing of copper and nickel ores. Cobalt is mined by workers laboring in slave-like conditions in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Cobalt is used in the manufacture of almost all lithium-ion rechargeable batteries used in the world today. It is the most difficult material to obtain for a battery and the most expensive.
Presently, the bulk of the necessary minerals for manufacturing the batteries come from Congo (Africa), China or Bolivia. Bolivia is home to the world’s largest lithium deposits with 50%. China controls 41% of the world’s cobalt mining and 6% of nickel. Africa also holds vast lithium deposits and Congo is a leading producer of cobalt. Much of the labor for getting the minerals in Africa is done by children! (Remember my musings on global enslavement & trafficking?) If we buy EVs, it's these countries who profit most for your “zero emissions” car. While many countries’ CO2 emissions have significantly decreased over time, China’s continues to increase at an alarming rate.
Another ignored fact about EV batteries is they require enormous amounts of energy to produce. The overwhelming majority of electricity to manufacture the batteries comes from burning fossil fuels. A 15-pound lithium-ion battery holds about the same amount of energy as a pound of oil. To make that battery requires 7,000 pounds of rock & dirt to get the minerals that go into that battery. The average EV battery weighs around 1,000 pounds. All of that mining and factory processing produces a lot more carbon dioxide emissions than a gas-powered car, so EVs have to be driven around 50,000 to 60,000 miles before there’s a net reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.
A new $4B Panasonic EV battery factory in Kansas requires so much power that the facility will need its own coal plant to run. Coal plants will have to remain open to produce EV batteries. They’d have to strip mine the planet to maintain this long term. Tesla’s Elon Musk will have to start mining asteroids!
It takes SEVEN years for an EV to reach net-zero CO2. The average life expectancy of the batteries is 10 years. Only in the last 3 years do you begin to reduce your carbon footprint. Then the batteries have to be replaced and you start over.
The new LFP chemistry batteries (lithium iron phosphate) are much better than the current Lithium-ion batteries as they do not contain nickel or cobalt. Mainly because their lifespan is longer before replacement is needed, and they don’t rapidly combust if pierced and exposed to oxygen.
Next question, do you know how much a replacement battery cost?
The cheapest battery - a 2021 Tesla Model Y OEM battery - is currently for sale on the Internet for $4,999 not including shipping or installation. The battery weighs 1,000 pounds (imagine the shipping cost). The cost of Tesla batteries is:
Model 3 -- $14,000+ (Car MSRP $38,990)
Model Y -- $5,000–$5,500 (Car MSRP $47,740)
Model S -- $13,000–$20,000 (Car MSRP $74,990)
Model X -- $13,000+ (Car MSRP $79,990)
And how will they dispose of all these "green" batteries? Right now, there is no way of recycling them. And…again there’s the dirty electricity to produce these. So much for net-zero CO2 emissions.
Mark Mills, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, says EVs “will reduce oil only slightly, and have an even smaller impact on carbon dioxide emissions.” Mills also stated that the increased demand for EV batteries will lead to “increases in the price for batteries, rather than decrease prices over time. Raw materials and minerals consist of 60-70% of the cost to fabricate a battery, and new mines take a minimum of 16 years to bring online.”
Charging Stations
Another consideration is charging stations. If you charge at home from solar you can do so at a lower cost per mile than gas powered vehicles cost. But many don’t have the finances to operate this way. While this is an option for some, most will have no choice but to continue dependence on a coal fired electrical grid which is far from efficient or green.
The construction of EV charging stations is lagging and those that are available, many, are out of service. Governments are demanding at least 97% availability and uptime; however, they are not being maintained. The installation costs alone can amount to around $100,000 making the total investment for a Level 3 EV charging station as high as $200,000 per charger. The infrastructure is not there despite governmental push for zero carbon emissions by 2030. Reliability and customer service are a big concern.
EMF Radiation
Also, no one is really talking about the significant levels of electromagnetic field (EMF) radiation that these charging stations emit. You are exposed to this radiation during the charging process. There are 2 categories of EMFs: higher-frequency (x-rays & gamma rays) and low- to mid-frequency (power lines, electrical wiring, electric appliances, computer/laptop, TV, radio, cell phones, wi-fi, microwaves, etc.). Electric fields are produced whether or not a device is turned on, whereas magnetic fields are produced only when current is flowing (the device is turned on). All electronics radiate harmful frequencies. This is why we don’t have any electronics in our bedroom except for a clock each. I have pieces of shungite crystals positioned around every electronic device as well as orgonite pucks for protection and to help harmonize the frequencies. I also purchased shungite stickers for my family to attach to their cell phones. Some people program their Wi-Fi to turn off while sleeping (something you may not want to do if you have security cameras.) And don’t forget I mentioned the power of sound and playing solfeggio frequencies to help balance out any negative energy. Anway, another safety concern to consider.
There are also safety issues with people (particularly women) being stranded without cell service and a dead car battery. Those that have (gun) carry permits might feel less vulnerable but personal safety is a concern. Wi-Fi connectivity is an additional challenge for rural communities and those who are driving through them.
We haven’t even taken into consideration the impact of EV on the farming & agricultural industry.
It’s important rural America isn’t left behind in the push to vehicle electrification. They face major logistical challenges if required to replace diesel-burning machines in the field including durability, reliability, and charging infrastructure. Farmers have limited resources and rely on a fleet of heavy-duty vehicles & machinery, often of substantial weight, plus all the unique equipment attachments. With dawn-to-dusk workdays, diesel fuel is preferred because it can work all day without having to refill. A battery could run out in a matter of hours, which means lost productivity which results in lost income. Ultimately, farmers need tools that help increase yields and productivity.
Farmers make long-term decisions based on maximum production. If a ban is made on internal combustion engines, it sets renewable fuels on a path to elimination and that would be detrimental to the farming & agricultural industry.
Maybe we should look for more environmentally friendly alternatives that don’t require child/slave labor, put our farmers out of business, and have a minimal carbon footprint. For example, Honda & General Motors have joined forces to build Hydrogen-Powered cars to shift away from EVs.
EVs are not the only option for more environmentally friendly driving. Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles (FCEVs) sound like something out of science fiction, but this clean energy technology was introduced in 1966. Hydrogen from the car’s onboard fuel tanks combines with oxygen inside the fuel cell stack to generate electricity via a process called reverse electrolysis. The electrons are removed from the hydrogen gas, sent through the circuit to power the motor, and combine with oxygen on the other side of the circuit to form water vapor, which is vented via the car’s exhaust. The advantage over battery EVs is refueling an FCEV’s hydrogen tanks is about as fast as filling up a gas car and they have a longer range of 300-400 miles before refueling. The upside is water is the only byproduct. The downside is that hydrogen can be highly flammable if handled improperly. But again, like EVs, hydrogen powered cars and technology are just not there yet.
I think it’s a good idea to press the brakes on transitioning to the use of EVs at the cost of the people and environment. Plus the grid can’t handle full conversion to EVs anyway. This technology needs to be carefully thought out & rolled out methodically. Private investment in this technology and building a national EV charging network is a costly endeavor that requires detailed planning & preparation.
EPA’s new emissions standards for heavy-duty trucks will effectively require that electric semi-trucks make up an increasing share of manufacturer sales from 2027 through 2032, similar to its recent rule for passenger cars. The difference is that the truck mandate is even more costly.
EVs make up less than 1% of US heavy-duty truck sales, and nearly all are in California, which heavily subsidizes and mandates their purchase. EPA’s rule will require electric models to account for 60% of new urban delivery trucks and 25% of long-haul tractor sales by 2032 (WSJ).
EV big rigs and commercial vehicles will need to make more stops for charging, will not be able to carry heavy weights, and there are no charging stations available for commercial vehicles. This will drive up the cost of goods throughout the USA, as well as making farm manufacturing more expensive - which equals less demand for products.
At this time there is not even a single long-haul tractor truck on the market, and yet 25% of them are now supposed to be EVS?
Earth is a living entity with a soul, and we are slowly killing her with negativity and environmental pollution. There are so many potentially unhealthy things in our environment, it’s almost impossible to avoid all of them. We know that eating less meat and buying organic have health benefits. Utilizing water filtration systems to reduce harmful chemicals is beneficial. Central air with hepa filters and/or room-size units help with airborne contaminants. And we can always find more ways to be better stewards of the Earth such as turning off the faucet while you’re lathering up in the shower or washing the dishes, having fewer SUVs increases the air quality & reduces air pollution deaths, and a four-day work week could allow for a better work life balance, more family time, and fewer child-care costs for parents. Of course, embracing permaculture and regenerative agriculture (remineralizing the soil) can play key roles in a more sustainable community. It’s time to reverse our ways & restore our home.
Understanding climate change requires grappling with a multitude of interconnected factors and adopting a multi-layered perspective. It involves acknowledging the potential influence of phenomena like pole shifts, which can disrupt climate patterns. Additionally, initiatives such as seed banks play a crucial role in preserving biodiversity and mitigating the effects of climate change on agriculture. Addressing consumption patterns is essential, as excessive consumption contributes significantly to GHG emissions and resource depletion. Mitigating CO2 emissions is paramount, given their potential role in driving global warming. Furthermore, methane emissions, often overlooked, demand attention. Debates around topics like chemtrails highlight the complexity of climate discourse, with some advocating for research into geoengineering solutions. Transitioning to electric vehicles is crucial for reducing reliance on fossil fuels, while the development of smart cities offers opportunities for sustainable urban planning and resource management. In essence, a comprehensive approach to climate change must encompass these complexities and perspectives to formulate effective strategies for mitigation and adaptation.
Let’s be more like the Guardians Seeds which remind us to protect the earth, work in harmony with nature, strive for sustainability, and plant seeds – physically and metaphorically.
P.S. The emissions from travel it took to write this musing was zero CO2. The digital CO2 emissions are an estimated 1.2g-3.6g because I wrote it on a computer with my office lights switched on and I used the internet for research (which all require electricity). And…no trees were destroyed in the sending of this message, however, a significant number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.