"That's not an article from the non-political press, it's a reproduction of a Facebook post by an ultra-conservative website."

I thought I had better wait for someone else to respond first. A few points in addition to Adam's:

The Australian National Review is a bit worse than "ultra-conservative". The website Media Bias/Fact Check (see mediabiasfactcheck.com/australian-national-review/) shows its credibility rating is low, and the whole outfit is summed up thus: "promotes pseudoscience, such as anti-vaccination... propaganda... they also publish conspiracy theories... they source from other conspiracy and pseudoscience websites... In general, this is a strongly rated conspiracy and pseudoscience website that is low for factual information."

Well thank you for the information. I did not give the origin a second thought, I am a bit like that believing the best in people and certainly not the politics Save for that just what is not factual about the article. So far two knocking the article but nothing about the believable content of

<< How do you expect me to know every fact that I read is from somewhere other than it is supposed to originate. The article makes perfect sense to me in any case. So almighty one just what is not factual or untrue and what's has got you so apoplectic on this Sunday afternoon. Yet another personal attack om me on a perfectly innocent post. >>

I can't speak for the others, Sammy, but I for one don't 'expect you to know every fact' - just as we don't. But I would expect you to be more scientifically critical of what you read.

As a matter of fact, I also think that hoping to equip a whole fleet of new vehicles with enormous batteries which consist largely of rarish elements calling for large-scale mining on the other side of the world, may be rather more expensive and globally damaging than some people imagine. Especially allowing for the Chinese having got both feet in the door well ahead of other nations.

It's very little to do with liking or disliking EVs, which have certain desirable (especially politically) features. Their main purpose is to reduce urban air pollution, not to save energy as such.

"Yet another personal attack om me on a perfectly innocent post."

There has been NO PERSONAL ATTACK on you. People are criticising the credentials of your source. (Actually, this is something you could easily have investigated yourself.)

You may have a point about environmental issues concerning battery manufacture, but you need to look elsewhere for back-up. It is very dangerous to take everything you read on the internet at face value.