Dear Editor,
I read Fiona Harvey's piece on "Green Opportunities" and "Leveling up" (The Guardian, 2nd Feb 2022, link below) and was shocked by some of the assumptions that experts seem to be making.
For example it is (repeatedly) assumed that electric vehicles are green. But, when you add up the various energy costs (for construction and for running) and the rare, toxic chemicals needed for the batteries, is that really the case? Then there is the abrasion of tyre-tread which causes many hundreds of tonnes of toxic, microplastic dust: That topic is far too often left out of the discussion!
And rural broadband? Is that really so "green"? Or maybe it is primarily to enable "townies" to buy themselves cute cottages and then do WFH ... when they are not flitting around in their electric cars.
On top of this, the internet itself is a "hungry beast", well on track to consume a fifth of all electricity. Yes, indeed, broadband (with fibre-optic relay-stations) carries a hefty "energy-price" ... and then there is all the other crazy stuff such as ultra-high-definition streaming, crypto-currency mining, high-volume-high-speed stock trading and 5G ... to name but a few!
It is such a shame that absolutely everyone, even The Greens, seem to be abusing the word green.
Regards
