The article is about how Indonesia wants to make more electric cars and batteries, which sounds good because it helps fight global warming. But there's a problem: they need to use coal to make the metal for the batteries. Coal is bad for the environment because it makes pollution and causes climate change. So even though Indonesia has good intentions, their plan might not be so great for the Earth. Read from source...

1. The title is misleading and sensationalized. It implies that Indonesia's EV ambitions will directly cause more coal burning, but the reality is more complex than that. There are many factors that influence the energy mix of a country, and EV production alone does not determine the amount of coal burned.
2. The article focuses too much on the potential negative impacts of Indonesia's EV ambitions without acknowledging the benefits or the efforts made by the government to mitigate them. For example, it mentions that Indonesia aims to produce 140 gigawatt-hours of annual battery production capacity by 2030, but does not mention how much of that would come from renewable sources or how it compares to the current global capacity.
3. The article also ignores the fact that Indonesia has a large and growing domestic market for EVs and batteries, which could reduce its dependence on export markets and lower the demand for coal-generated electricity. Moreover, the government's ban on raw nickel ore exports is intended to promote value addition and environmental protection, not just revenue generation.
4. The article uses a simplistic causal logic that implies that more EV production leads to more climate change, without considering other factors such as energy efficiency, carbon pricing, or technological innovation. It also fails to acknowledge the potential synergies between EV and renewable energy sectors, such as grid integration, storage, and demand response.
5. The article cites a quote from a former official who says that "Indonesia's coal industry will significantly change". This is vague and ambiguous, and does not provide any evidence or explanation for how or why the coal industry will change. It also implies that the coal industry is homogeneous and monolithic, which is not accurate. There are different types of coal, different stages of production and consumption, and different stakeholders involved.
6. The article relies heavily on secondary sources, such as news articles and reports, without verifying or cross-checking them. It also does not cite any primary sources, such as data, statistics, or academic papers, to support its claims or arguments. This makes the article less credible and trustworthy, and exposes it to potential biases or errors.
7. The article uses emotional language and tone, such as "burn more coal", "contradiction", and "climate-warming", which appeal to the reader's feelings rather than their logic

1. Alaska Energy Metals (OTC:AKEMF) - The company is a speculative play on the nickel market, as it owns a 100% interest in two nickel-copper-cobalt projects in Alaska. However, there are significant risks involved, such as the remote location of the properties, lack of infrastructure, environmental regulations, and competition from other producers. The stock is heavily diluted and has a low market capitalization. Therefore, this investment is suitable for high-risk tolerance investors who believe in the long-term potential of nickel as a key component of EV batteries.