Absolutely! You are quite right. However, my interpretation of this message is not necessarily “we might reconsider our stance on troop mines”. Rather it is: “we will go to any lengths, even those we find barbaric and cruel, to defend our nation”. Although on the face of it, it is the wording of the agreement that sets the formalities.
Oh, it wasn’t the UN that was the intended recipient of that particular message. That’s why it was sent publicly…
I’d say it is an obvious way to try to confuse BEV with LEV… To sell more ICE-cars…
Sweden is as expected. 200-something fatalities for 10 million people. Norway stands out😃
It got me thinking about definitions, though. For Sweden every death during transportation is counted (including busses, heavy trucks and single accidents with a bike), while the definition my 2 minute googling found for Canada said deaths resulting from accidents involving automobiles.
So, without the shift in fuel the emissions would be 2% higher? Why is that not a good thing?
Yes, we want total emissions lower, but without the efuel emissions would have been even higher.