First, I congratulate you for the historical review of the issue. Too much political commentary has the attention span of a gnat. This analysis reminded of stuff I had forgotten.
I think one of the wrong steps was the alliance with the green plutocrats. The temptation for funding for the causes was difficult to resist but there were definite downsides. First, the hypocrisy was blatant as seen in the hundreds of private jets at climate conferences and the economic impacts from which the billionaires would be insulated. Second, as we have seen, the plutocrats are plutocrats first and green only if it did not upset their position. The embrace of the WEF did not help the cause.
I tried three times to read that piece and never got all the way to the end. And I'm a reader. It was flabby writing that did not succinctly state the policies, programs, or underlying ideas, or the differences between factions and parties.
Perhaps of interest to activist and government types who already are immersed in the arguments and are adept at Bullshit Bingo, but not to someone who'd have liked a crisp survey of the issues. I rate it a swing and a miss. Reading it reminded me of one of those corporate "visioning" meetings that I would find excuses to miss.
This article is like it's written to the elites who brought big time damage to our country. I am an unaffiliated voter and this piece is a lot of blather.
That was my impression, but (and this is rare for me) I didn't want to be quite that harsh. But yeah, it kinda sorta reads like a communique from the European Union. LOL. Wishy-washy and meandering. To quote an old friend, "Life is the process of picking the corn from the shit." Not a lot of corn there.
The fact that the mentioned “climate activists” never protest against China’s many imperialistic policies (emissions, censorship, forced labor, exploitation of developing countries etc) suggests to me that their priorities are more anti- western civilization than they are for reducing global emissions or improving human rights.
An increasing standard of living lifts more people out of poverty. As people become more prosperous they have fewer children, and more of their children survive to adulthood. In addition they move up Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and want cleaner air and a cleaner environment in which to live.
Or, as we see LA burning again, we see a continuation that the Democrats have no viable plan to govern this country. Far fetched? quite simply, SS:DD for Democrats and a failed incompetent party except for the elites. What [policies have they brought forth to show they could govern? Nothing. Note the difference between the extant of damage with troops and no troops. This is the epitome of what the national guard is meant to do. And the Dems have set the stage for acceptance of deployment of those troops to protect Federal property and personnel because the Dems would not. It is all connected. Unlawful to deploy the national guard that protects small business and poorer neighborhoods. Newsome, Bass and the rest are a catastrophic clown show.
I'm watching the riots in L.A., naturally described as mere "protests" by the media "progressives" who love riots except for the one four and a half years ago, and who generally don't much care for this country.
I am amazed once again at the ability of the Democratic Party to pick the wrong side of almost every issue or controversy. Say what you will about Trump, but the man has an unerring instinct to align himself with the American public. No matter what happens in L.A., the situation will be a win for him. His approval rating will rise as a result.
Quite the iconography this time, with "peaceful protesters" standing in riot scenes waving Mexican flags. So this is what the Democrats stand for. Wow. Good show, "progressives." Do you have a political death wish, or what?
The Dems created Trump and kept him in the public’s eyes. Dems created the professional rioters also. And when they can’t control their creations, they blame everyone else. I’m sure the small business owners are appreciative of the national guard protecting their livelihood. Just their presence is enough I believe. I’d love to see what would happen if the Marines went in. I think the knowledge they are ready to go is enough to make the rioters think twice.
(Sorry for multiple posts and deletions of this comment. It's an artifact of Substack's software that does not allow editing of long posts.)
One thing occurs to me: Why doesn't anyone use Ye Olde Water Cannon? That would have taken care of almost all the rioting of the last few years, including the latest. By the way, I suspect this bunch of rioters knows how to stay away from the Rooftop Koreans of 1992.
I think Trump picked himself -- sui generis, I'd say -- but the Democrats made him successful, just as the Federalists made Andrew Jackson a political giant by screwing him out of the presidency in 1824. The election of 2024 wasn't Jackson's landslide of 1828 or 1832, but it was a dramatic comeback for someone, who along with tens of millions of shit-on followers, made his bones by giving double middle fingers to the rulers who thought they owned the country and could push everyone around. Oops.
I'd note that Jackson, an uneducated frontiersman, had a hot temper and held some destructive grudges, most notably against Nicholas Biddle, the head of the Bank of the United States. Jackson's destruction of the bank ushered in a period of needless financial chaos, and the rise of the Democratic Party, backed by what were then the Westerners and Southerners against the Eastern elites, ushered in the Civil War and the rise of the Republicans and Abraham Lincoln.
The parallels are not exact, one being that Trump was born to a rich father while Jackson was the opposite. But Trump came from "Outer Borough" stock, never accepted by the Manhattan silk stocking set, which along with his pugnacious nature has made him an heir to Jackson's appeal to the common man.
Today's Democratic Party is somewhere between the Federalists and the Whigs, and stands much closer to the political abyss than they want to realize. And now they stand with rioters and illegals against the American majority, and oh -- due process for the cartels and criminal gangs welcomed into the country by the "progressives," who are safe in their rich suburbs.
What do they say? History doesn't repeat itself but it sure as hell rhymes from time to time.
And here the Democrats whine about "democracy." What transparent horseshit! My favorite example is that Colorado tried to keep him off of the ballots on account of the riot at the Capitol on January 6, 2001. In reality, our democratic republic worked just as designed. The people spoke, the bastards, and unless and until the Democratic Party removes the shit from its ears and listens, they'll be history.
We make our own fortunes in this country, and we do it without the helpful direction of the New York Times, PBS, the Associated Press, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the L.A. Times, Reuters, CBS, ABC, NBC/MSNBC, CNN, and the arrogant universities of the Ivy League and their imitators among the liberal arts finishing schools elsewhere.
Funny how that works, isn't it? Yes, we fart in both directions, and woe betide whoever forgets that. Best example: Right after Grover Cleveland was inaugurated for his second term came the Panic of 1893, followed by the biggest sudden congressional realignment in American history. The Democrats were crushed, and the interregnum of Wilson from 1913-1921 notwithstanding, were out of power for 40 years. Want loyalty? Get a dog.
p.s.: Democrats, if you think that "messaging" will save you, well, it won't. But at the very least, you might ponder the "messaging" behind your mobs of rioters torching vehicles and attacking law enforcement, all while holding Mexican flags. Might be time for some new consultants, wouldn't you say?
Jackson killed at least one man in a duel. He also had informal gunfights with a governor and a Senator and, if not restrained by his staff would have beaten to death the man who tried to assassinate him. His deathbed regret was that he hadn't hanged John C. Calhoun. I think that Trump is a model of restraint.
Jackson was the most physically courageous president, with George Washington in second place. Truman went through a lot during World War I, too. Jackson's exploits went far beyond his two duel. The stories are true, and they are legendary. The duels injured him badly, and the wounds caused him lifelong pain and discomfort.
A truly outstanding book: "Andrew Jackson and His Indian Wars," by Robert Remini. Learned a whole lot.
In his informal gunfight with the Senator, Thomas Hart Benton, the Senator's brother (probably) put the bullet in him that plagued him the rest of his life. Oddly Benton became a staunch ally and his daughter married the first Republican Presidential candidate, Fremont.
Boy oh boy could any dope see what was up with the green agenda.
Two cohorts... the NGO leeches... watched Al Gore make millions with his sensationalist fatalism lies. The Wall Street cohort that needed another big economic gambling opportunity to replace the tech boom that they gave to China and other countries for the corporate primacy that drives most of their behavior.
Then throw in Godless secular left liberals in academia that lack spirituality and drift toward paganism and this is their "mother nature" calling.
Together they are the Professional Managerial Class. The same that has destroyed working class economic opportunity for the benefit of their own bank accounts... and pushed the fake science climate crisis cult to do more of the same.
Sorry your elite cretins, it isn't gonna happen. Drill baby drill!
Good analysis. Anyone reading my stuff knows I've been warning about Democrats' "Civil War #3" (which was the Tech Bros v. Green) over the power demands of AI for over a year. It is an inevitable split. Bloomberg now reports China is building coal plants like McDonalds, and the WSJ admits China is getting "Power security" (meaning energy. This is absolutely impossible with wind and solar. In the next 50 years, energy demand (regardless of falling populations) will soar, probably by more than 50%. The fewer humans there are, the more they will require robots and AI, and the more than will mean coal and nukes.
Why so many trillions of computations? What makes A.I. need to many trillions, as opposed to other areas like manufacturing and finance, to name a couple. I'm not as dumb as I might sound, but in this case I am starting from scratch, and when that happens I start with simple questions.
It's the learning process. The technology people are referring to when they talk about 'AI' is, specifically, a 'neural net', which is more or less akin to a (rather primitive) mathematical model of the human brain. A normal computer's basic particle is the familiar 'on/off' bit--a neural net's basic particle (often called the 'perceptron') is a model of a neuron. Basically, it has a whole bunch of inputs that are fed into an equation (the 'activation function') that outputs either a zero or one; each of these inputs is given a number--the 'weight'--that represents the degree of influence the input will have on the equation's result. The perceptron is fed data, and then its output is compared to a desired output. If it does not achieve the desired output, (say it produces a 1 when it was supposed to produce a 0) the neural net calculates the degree of error, uses that calculation to readjust the weights, and then runs the data through the perceptron again. By running through the data over and over again and constantly adjusting the weights, the degree of error will slowly shrink and the perceptron will eventually become able to give the correct output--i.e., it should be able to 'learn' the correct behavior.
So imagine supermassive networks of perceptrons linked together and feeding their output into one another, constantly running huge bodies of training data (the training data being the 'desired output' that they are supposed to learn to reproduce) through the complex statistical-correlative equations of their 'activation functions' and readjusting their weights. That's AI--and as it sounds, it requires a tremendous amount of energy to gather, consume and process the relevant data that makes it work. And, to stay up to date, it must be in a *constant* state of processing and learning.
Or, if you want a waaaay-too-simplistic answer, think about the difference in effort expended in *learning* the answer to a question versus being *told* the answer to a question. That is the reason why AI consumes so much more energy than conventional computing--it takes far less energy to run a program that transmits a premade message composed of zeros and ones across a network than it does to run a program that teaches a network to form the message on its own through brute trial-and-error.
It's how AI works. It posits one set of 0/1 per computation, but needs trillions of those to answer a complex question like "has there ever been someone killed at Mount Everest by another person?" Beyond that, you'll have to talk to a real techhie about how the guts of these computers really work.
The only green policy worth anything is government investment into green technologies that can then be used in the private sector.
If climate change is real (and there's lots of evidence it is), technology is probably the only way to either solve it, or make humans capable of surviving it. So invest in that technology and make it profitable.
However, I always give everyone, regardless of political persuasion, a warning borne out by history: humans are big procrastinators. They usually refuse to deal with something until it hits them right in the face--then they get very creative and solve problems. They're a bit like a student who doesn't apply himself until the day before finals, and then engages in a heroic cram session (and/or essay/thesis/dissertation-writing marathon) to secure a passing grade. My guess is that we will probably put off dealing with climatological issues until we are being pummeled into oblivion by unstable weather and resource shortages. We'll walk right up to the edge of apocalypse--then we'll get to work inventing a way out of our predicament.
Believe it or not, we've been there before. Malthus predicted we'd all starve to death because the world didn't have enough food. A lot of people did indeed starve to death...and then we invented technologies that made food plentiful for everyone. It's what we do.
Tesla uses Lithium Iron Phosphate (LFP) batteries in some of its entry-level vehicles. LFP batteries are cheaper to produce because they don't use supply-constrained materials like cobalt and nickel. LFP chemistry is inherently more thermally stable, reducing the risk of overheating or thermal runaway. LFP batteries also have a longer cycle life, meaning they can withstand more charge and discharge cycles without significant degradation.
GM, in partnership with LG Energy Solution, is commercializing lithium manganese-rich (LMR) prismatic battery cells. These batteries use a significantly higher proportion of more affordable manganese, effectively replacing cobalt in the cathode, while still delivering high energy density and range. They aim for commercial production of LMR batteries by 2028.
GM and Ford face supply chain challenges in making the transition to electric vehicles. Securing critical minerals (lithium, cobalt, nickel) for batteries and building robust domestic supply chains are challenging. Geopolitical tensions with China further complicate this challenge.
Ramping up EV production, particularly for new battery technologies and dedicated EV platforms, involves manufacturing challenges, including retooling factories and training a new workforce.
First, I congratulate you for the historical review of the issue. Too much political commentary has the attention span of a gnat. This analysis reminded of stuff I had forgotten.
I think one of the wrong steps was the alliance with the green plutocrats. The temptation for funding for the causes was difficult to resist but there were definite downsides. First, the hypocrisy was blatant as seen in the hundreds of private jets at climate conferences and the economic impacts from which the billionaires would be insulated. Second, as we have seen, the plutocrats are plutocrats first and green only if it did not upset their position. The embrace of the WEF did not help the cause.
I tried three times to read that piece and never got all the way to the end. And I'm a reader. It was flabby writing that did not succinctly state the policies, programs, or underlying ideas, or the differences between factions and parties.
Perhaps of interest to activist and government types who already are immersed in the arguments and are adept at Bullshit Bingo, but not to someone who'd have liked a crisp survey of the issues. I rate it a swing and a miss. Reading it reminded me of one of those corporate "visioning" meetings that I would find excuses to miss.
This article is like it's written to the elites who brought big time damage to our country. I am an unaffiliated voter and this piece is a lot of blather.
That was my impression, but (and this is rare for me) I didn't want to be quite that harsh. But yeah, it kinda sorta reads like a communique from the European Union. LOL. Wishy-washy and meandering. To quote an old friend, "Life is the process of picking the corn from the shit." Not a lot of corn there.
The fact that the mentioned “climate activists” never protest against China’s many imperialistic policies (emissions, censorship, forced labor, exploitation of developing countries etc) suggests to me that their priorities are more anti- western civilization than they are for reducing global emissions or improving human rights.
One major change in the last 25 years has been to see "progressives" become enemies of personal freedom.
Falling fertility rates will probably do more to ameliorate the climate issue than all of the climate policies combined.
An increasing standard of living lifts more people out of poverty. As people become more prosperous they have fewer children, and more of their children survive to adulthood. In addition they move up Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and want cleaner air and a cleaner environment in which to live.
Or, as we see LA burning again, we see a continuation that the Democrats have no viable plan to govern this country. Far fetched? quite simply, SS:DD for Democrats and a failed incompetent party except for the elites. What [policies have they brought forth to show they could govern? Nothing. Note the difference between the extant of damage with troops and no troops. This is the epitome of what the national guard is meant to do. And the Dems have set the stage for acceptance of deployment of those troops to protect Federal property and personnel because the Dems would not. It is all connected. Unlawful to deploy the national guard that protects small business and poorer neighborhoods. Newsome, Bass and the rest are a catastrophic clown show.
I'm watching the riots in L.A., naturally described as mere "protests" by the media "progressives" who love riots except for the one four and a half years ago, and who generally don't much care for this country.
I am amazed once again at the ability of the Democratic Party to pick the wrong side of almost every issue or controversy. Say what you will about Trump, but the man has an unerring instinct to align himself with the American public. No matter what happens in L.A., the situation will be a win for him. His approval rating will rise as a result.
Quite the iconography this time, with "peaceful protesters" standing in riot scenes waving Mexican flags. So this is what the Democrats stand for. Wow. Good show, "progressives." Do you have a political death wish, or what?
The Dems created Trump and kept him in the public’s eyes. Dems created the professional rioters also. And when they can’t control their creations, they blame everyone else. I’m sure the small business owners are appreciative of the national guard protecting their livelihood. Just their presence is enough I believe. I’d love to see what would happen if the Marines went in. I think the knowledge they are ready to go is enough to make the rioters think twice.
(Sorry for multiple posts and deletions of this comment. It's an artifact of Substack's software that does not allow editing of long posts.)
One thing occurs to me: Why doesn't anyone use Ye Olde Water Cannon? That would have taken care of almost all the rioting of the last few years, including the latest. By the way, I suspect this bunch of rioters knows how to stay away from the Rooftop Koreans of 1992.
I think Trump picked himself -- sui generis, I'd say -- but the Democrats made him successful, just as the Federalists made Andrew Jackson a political giant by screwing him out of the presidency in 1824. The election of 2024 wasn't Jackson's landslide of 1828 or 1832, but it was a dramatic comeback for someone, who along with tens of millions of shit-on followers, made his bones by giving double middle fingers to the rulers who thought they owned the country and could push everyone around. Oops.
I'd note that Jackson, an uneducated frontiersman, had a hot temper and held some destructive grudges, most notably against Nicholas Biddle, the head of the Bank of the United States. Jackson's destruction of the bank ushered in a period of needless financial chaos, and the rise of the Democratic Party, backed by what were then the Westerners and Southerners against the Eastern elites, ushered in the Civil War and the rise of the Republicans and Abraham Lincoln.
The parallels are not exact, one being that Trump was born to a rich father while Jackson was the opposite. But Trump came from "Outer Borough" stock, never accepted by the Manhattan silk stocking set, which along with his pugnacious nature has made him an heir to Jackson's appeal to the common man.
Today's Democratic Party is somewhere between the Federalists and the Whigs, and stands much closer to the political abyss than they want to realize. And now they stand with rioters and illegals against the American majority, and oh -- due process for the cartels and criminal gangs welcomed into the country by the "progressives," who are safe in their rich suburbs.
What do they say? History doesn't repeat itself but it sure as hell rhymes from time to time.
And here the Democrats whine about "democracy." What transparent horseshit! My favorite example is that Colorado tried to keep him off of the ballots on account of the riot at the Capitol on January 6, 2001. In reality, our democratic republic worked just as designed. The people spoke, the bastards, and unless and until the Democratic Party removes the shit from its ears and listens, they'll be history.
We make our own fortunes in this country, and we do it without the helpful direction of the New York Times, PBS, the Associated Press, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the L.A. Times, Reuters, CBS, ABC, NBC/MSNBC, CNN, and the arrogant universities of the Ivy League and their imitators among the liberal arts finishing schools elsewhere.
Funny how that works, isn't it? Yes, we fart in both directions, and woe betide whoever forgets that. Best example: Right after Grover Cleveland was inaugurated for his second term came the Panic of 1893, followed by the biggest sudden congressional realignment in American history. The Democrats were crushed, and the interregnum of Wilson from 1913-1921 notwithstanding, were out of power for 40 years. Want loyalty? Get a dog.
p.s.: Democrats, if you think that "messaging" will save you, well, it won't. But at the very least, you might ponder the "messaging" behind your mobs of rioters torching vehicles and attacking law enforcement, all while holding Mexican flags. Might be time for some new consultants, wouldn't you say?
Jackson killed at least one man in a duel. He also had informal gunfights with a governor and a Senator and, if not restrained by his staff would have beaten to death the man who tried to assassinate him. His deathbed regret was that he hadn't hanged John C. Calhoun. I think that Trump is a model of restraint.
Jackson was the most physically courageous president, with George Washington in second place. Truman went through a lot during World War I, too. Jackson's exploits went far beyond his two duel. The stories are true, and they are legendary. The duels injured him badly, and the wounds caused him lifelong pain and discomfort.
A truly outstanding book: "Andrew Jackson and His Indian Wars," by Robert Remini. Learned a whole lot.
In his informal gunfight with the Senator, Thomas Hart Benton, the Senator's brother (probably) put the bullet in him that plagued him the rest of his life. Oddly Benton became a staunch ally and his daughter married the first Republican Presidential candidate, Fremont.
Boy oh boy could any dope see what was up with the green agenda.
Two cohorts... the NGO leeches... watched Al Gore make millions with his sensationalist fatalism lies. The Wall Street cohort that needed another big economic gambling opportunity to replace the tech boom that they gave to China and other countries for the corporate primacy that drives most of their behavior.
Then throw in Godless secular left liberals in academia that lack spirituality and drift toward paganism and this is their "mother nature" calling.
Together they are the Professional Managerial Class. The same that has destroyed working class economic opportunity for the benefit of their own bank accounts... and pushed the fake science climate crisis cult to do more of the same.
Sorry your elite cretins, it isn't gonna happen. Drill baby drill!
The Green Agenda is about how to stick everyone with more taxes.
Good analysis. Anyone reading my stuff knows I've been warning about Democrats' "Civil War #3" (which was the Tech Bros v. Green) over the power demands of AI for over a year. It is an inevitable split. Bloomberg now reports China is building coal plants like McDonalds, and the WSJ admits China is getting "Power security" (meaning energy. This is absolutely impossible with wind and solar. In the next 50 years, energy demand (regardless of falling populations) will soar, probably by more than 50%. The fewer humans there are, the more they will require robots and AI, and the more than will mean coal and nukes.
Not a fan of the article, but I do have a question: Why does A.I. need so much electricity?
It is the phenomenal computing power that must run trillions of computations 24/7.
Why so many trillions of computations? What makes A.I. need to many trillions, as opposed to other areas like manufacturing and finance, to name a couple. I'm not as dumb as I might sound, but in this case I am starting from scratch, and when that happens I start with simple questions.
It's the learning process. The technology people are referring to when they talk about 'AI' is, specifically, a 'neural net', which is more or less akin to a (rather primitive) mathematical model of the human brain. A normal computer's basic particle is the familiar 'on/off' bit--a neural net's basic particle (often called the 'perceptron') is a model of a neuron. Basically, it has a whole bunch of inputs that are fed into an equation (the 'activation function') that outputs either a zero or one; each of these inputs is given a number--the 'weight'--that represents the degree of influence the input will have on the equation's result. The perceptron is fed data, and then its output is compared to a desired output. If it does not achieve the desired output, (say it produces a 1 when it was supposed to produce a 0) the neural net calculates the degree of error, uses that calculation to readjust the weights, and then runs the data through the perceptron again. By running through the data over and over again and constantly adjusting the weights, the degree of error will slowly shrink and the perceptron will eventually become able to give the correct output--i.e., it should be able to 'learn' the correct behavior.
So imagine supermassive networks of perceptrons linked together and feeding their output into one another, constantly running huge bodies of training data (the training data being the 'desired output' that they are supposed to learn to reproduce) through the complex statistical-correlative equations of their 'activation functions' and readjusting their weights. That's AI--and as it sounds, it requires a tremendous amount of energy to gather, consume and process the relevant data that makes it work. And, to stay up to date, it must be in a *constant* state of processing and learning.
Or, if you want a waaaay-too-simplistic answer, think about the difference in effort expended in *learning* the answer to a question versus being *told* the answer to a question. That is the reason why AI consumes so much more energy than conventional computing--it takes far less energy to run a program that transmits a premade message composed of zeros and ones across a network than it does to run a program that teaches a network to form the message on its own through brute trial-and-error.
It's how AI works. It posits one set of 0/1 per computation, but needs trillions of those to answer a complex question like "has there ever been someone killed at Mount Everest by another person?" Beyond that, you'll have to talk to a real techhie about how the guts of these computers really work.
The A.I. I've seen so far doesn't impress me. Seems like a waste of some trillions. LOL
There are some people who think that AI will eventually not need so much power or giant data centers
Hope so.
The only green policy worth anything is government investment into green technologies that can then be used in the private sector.
If climate change is real (and there's lots of evidence it is), technology is probably the only way to either solve it, or make humans capable of surviving it. So invest in that technology and make it profitable.
However, I always give everyone, regardless of political persuasion, a warning borne out by history: humans are big procrastinators. They usually refuse to deal with something until it hits them right in the face--then they get very creative and solve problems. They're a bit like a student who doesn't apply himself until the day before finals, and then engages in a heroic cram session (and/or essay/thesis/dissertation-writing marathon) to secure a passing grade. My guess is that we will probably put off dealing with climatological issues until we are being pummeled into oblivion by unstable weather and resource shortages. We'll walk right up to the edge of apocalypse--then we'll get to work inventing a way out of our predicament.
Believe it or not, we've been there before. Malthus predicted we'd all starve to death because the world didn't have enough food. A lot of people did indeed starve to death...and then we invented technologies that made food plentiful for everyone. It's what we do.
Tesla uses Lithium Iron Phosphate (LFP) batteries in some of its entry-level vehicles. LFP batteries are cheaper to produce because they don't use supply-constrained materials like cobalt and nickel. LFP chemistry is inherently more thermally stable, reducing the risk of overheating or thermal runaway. LFP batteries also have a longer cycle life, meaning they can withstand more charge and discharge cycles without significant degradation.
GM, in partnership with LG Energy Solution, is commercializing lithium manganese-rich (LMR) prismatic battery cells. These batteries use a significantly higher proportion of more affordable manganese, effectively replacing cobalt in the cathode, while still delivering high energy density and range. They aim for commercial production of LMR batteries by 2028.
GM and Ford face supply chain challenges in making the transition to electric vehicles. Securing critical minerals (lithium, cobalt, nickel) for batteries and building robust domestic supply chains are challenging. Geopolitical tensions with China further complicate this challenge.
Ramping up EV production, particularly for new battery technologies and dedicated EV platforms, involves manufacturing challenges, including retooling factories and training a new workforce.
And turning a blind eye to the forced labor and children mining critical minerals.