It's bullshit that scientific publications are "myths created by the fossil fuel companies," but if you wish to claim that buying a car makes you an expert in the source of electricity on the planet, there's very little I can do to contradict this view by which you justify your consumption to yourself.
Every year, the International Energy Agency publishes a report on the world's energy sources:
IEA 2017 World Energy Outlook.
The next one comes out in November. I read every issue. You?
I'm certainly in no position to contradict your nonsense statements, but I did post a link to a, um, scientific publication showing that in China, where coal is king, the death toll associated with electric cars is higher than that of electric cars.
China, I note, citing that publication has 100 million electric vehicles. Here it is again:
Electric Vehicles in China: Emissions and Health Impacts (Cherry et al, Environ. Sci. Technol., 2012, 46 (4), pp 2018–2024)
A map of air pollution deaths in China can be found in this paper:
Nature: China's annual air pollution deaths now stand at 1.4 million per year.
Nature 525, 367–371 (17 September 2015)
I'm certainly in no position to educate you; but I really question which one of us is awash in marketing hype. I would suggest you look into the laws of thermodynamics, but in lieu of that, maybe you can watch one of that idiot Elon Musk's ads showing wind turbines (bird and bat grinders) in the back ground.
As for the question of whether or not you are a rich person, I wrote extensively some time ago about people who live on less than $1 dollar a day:
Current Energy Demand; Ethical Energy Demand; Depleted Uranium and the Centuries to Come
Maybe you don't know what "rich" is but I'm certainly not willing to approve of subsidizing your car when there are children in inner city schools who lack textbooks that might allow them, if not you, the opportunity to learn the laws of thermodyamics.
Edit history
= new reply since forum marked as read
