Questioning ‘Great Reset’
Newsday
2 Hrs Ago
THE EDITOR: The adherents of the so-called “Great Reset” are working with any number of unstated assumptions. For example, the idea that global population must be reduced and one way or another people will have to die. Or that certain groups understand the situation better than others to the extent that only the former can be trusted. Or that their declared initiatives and preferences must be the best, eg deploying mass experimental genetic-treatments via “vaccination mandates.”
The Prince of Wales is so taken with “saving the environment” and so decided about his vision of success, he has declared his support for “military-style” confiscations and impositions. One big assumption exists with electric vehicles – that these will solve the carbon crisis.
Here is the problem with electric vehicles. Their batteries are extremely toxic, corrosive and volatile. They have a lifespan and then a recycle limit, after which they have to be discarded.
If, for sake of argument, batteries must eventually go to waste after 15 years of use, what will happen to all their toxic discharge and how will incendiary risk be controlled? Half a billion of these defunct junk batteries will inevitably pose a very serious hazard to the environment, with global ramifications.
With so many assumptions in play, is any rational dialogue even possible?
E GALY
via e-mail
*** This article has been archived for your research. The original version from TT Newsday can be found here ***
