I can't find a monetary breakdown of online vs. other, but by total advertising costs, I see 1.5%. So if online is not dominant I agree that they are high but close, maybe within the order of magnitude.
To address the cumulative effect, this is the same as the sun. There is a balance of heat radiant on the earth and then earth radiates to space. The amount coming to earth is set by the distance to the sun and how reflective the earth is. The amount leaving the earth is set by its temperature (blackbody) and how much is trapped by various mechanisms (reflecting back to the earth again). Therefore, one way to think about it is the excess energy on top of the ones accounted for, like the sun.
Using total energy consumption (not just electricity) and redoing the calculation using entire incident solar flux, I get that they are within a factor of 4 of each other. I agree that the sun currently dominates and the co2 capture is the dominant mechanism. It's also interesting that our consumption is so close to the same order of magnitude. It suggests that if we were to heavily invest in e.g. nuclear to solve our carbon issue that the heat alone would be on the same scale of excess energy and heating would continue. It also says that for solar to solve the problem we would need to cover something like 5-10% of the land mass in solar cells!
I believe it is both. The CO2 helps to trap more of what the earth receives from the sun (primarily what is talked about with global warming), but our energy use is also staggering. I can't recall off the top of my head but we currently consume something equivalent to ~0.1% of the total solar radiation incident on the earth (through all means - oil, gas, solar etc). At that scale, the energy use alone is on the scale of other warming effects, wild!
There is already legislation about acceleration, it falls under e.g. 'exhibition of speed' and everyone one of these modern EVs is able to violate it (and do regularly, afaict).
It's harder to characterize. It could be just a burst of acceleration during an overtaking maneuver, but if this is done while obscured from someone who is about to cross the street, and has judged their safety to do so by the bigger, heavier, slower vehicle in front, then you have a risk of collision. Overtaking is a normal driving maneuver, and limited in duration. Reckless driving, which may be in an exhibitionary manner, is very different in nature and easier to categorise.
It's not just inconvenient, it's inconvenient enough to almost say you can't do it. I believe there is a firm lockout period of 2 years (so no 'new' cars can be imported). And then if it is not already licensed with various agencies you have to do that yourself, per-car, at a cost of (I heard) $7-15k. Not to mention the shipping, customs, etc.
Apologies for being pedantic: yes, change is coming, but certainly not faster than that brought on by a giant asteroid impact or major eruption. I only mention this as I feel exaggeration harms credibility.
If the change happens at a rate faster than most life on earth can adapt then the end effect is the same. Just will happen over a decade vs. over a month.
One way or another the company's obligations are down. Company revenue is ~$200B/yr so they will easily take advantage of the full tax exemption, which you could then think of as paying workers or any other business expense (pessimist note: I strongly suspect it will not go towards higher wages or better working conditions).
Volkswagen and Stellantis have 200B Canadian revenue? Where are you getting your numbers from?
That's 10% of Canada's entire GDP
The profits might not go to the workers, but whatever they will be getting paid to work at a battery Factory is more than zero for not working. If a battery Factory doesn't pay more than the next best job, they won't have any employees
