@BraceMaker not to start a pissing contest, but the "global scientific community" IS political even though they have "scientists" as some of the boards on the international organizations. It doesn't take much digging to find alot of scientists who disagree with the "SCIENTIFIC community" statements.
Step back and think about how basic scientific process works. You ALWAYS question and debate issues.
If the existential threat of CO2 was a scientific issue, it would be presented as "here are facts X, Y and Z that show the world will end in 10 years, here are facts A, B and C that show it won't and the case is overwhelming that we are in deep shit." It would also consider the cost (financial, environmental and geo-political) of options for action. Any new facts or data would be considered as more is learned. Is anything remotely like that happening, or is it balls to wall on wind/solar in spite of all the negative aspects of those?
On the other hand, a political argument would go like "Everyone agrees CO2 will kill everyone in 10 years and we have to adopt wind/solar energy [and ignore all negative costs]. Even though none of the predictions of global catastrophe over the last 50 years have come true, it will really happen this time. Anyone who disagrees is an ignorant science denier". Sound familiar?
I do think the electrical vehicle and boat technology has a lot of potential benefits. It has a way to go before it will be comparable (cost, performance, longevity, weight, etc) with petrol powered vehicles. The free market is best for technology developments. Its the politically driven agendas that give me the heartburn.