> just that claiming there is not one reason is patently false I don't know who that is directed to but that does not correspond to my comment. > that pretend

> just that claiming there is not one reason is patently false I don't know who that is directed to but that does not correspond to my comment. > that pretending there's no reason for it is a rhetorical trick! Well, good thing that I neither claimed nor 'pretended' that there is no reason, then... Now, "emissions" is a weak reason that is used to justify about anything and everything these days, and as already mentioned in another comment, in this case that argument disappears with EVs... so I would not count that as a persuasive reason.