“I Am Going To Lecture You On Climate Change:” BBC Reporter Gets Schooled for Hypocrisy

On March 28, President Mohamed Irfaan Ali of the South American country of Guyana became an instant hero to many as he refused to take lectures on climate change from a BBC reporter during an interview.

xr:d:DAGB8bl8jJE:2,j:1343622937941451979,t:24040917

From Watts Up With That?

By Tilak K. Doshi

April 08, 2024

On March 28, President Mohamed Irfaan Ali of the South American country of Guyana became an instant hero to many as he refused to take lectures on climate change from a BBC reporter during an interview. In a two-minute video clip that went viral on X (formerly Twitter) and other social media, President Ali turned the tables on the BBC’s Stephen Sackur when the reporter accused Guyana of worsening the “climate crisis” by allowing the exploitation of its newly found oil and gas reserves.

“Over the next decade or two, it’s expected that there will be $150 billion worth of oil and gas extracted off your coast,” Sackur told the president. “It’s an extraordinary figure. But think of it in practical terms. That means – according to many experts – two billion tons of carbon emissions will come from your seabed from those reserves and released into the atmosphere.” Guyana’s head of state quickly rebutted: “Let me stop you right there. Did you know that Guyana has a forest that is the size of England and Scotland combined, a forest that stores 19.5 gigatons of carbon, a forest that we have kept alive?”

When the reporter asked President Ali whether the rainforest gave him the “right” to release the carbon, the Guyanese leader retorted: “Does that give you the right to lecture us on climate change? I’m going to lecture you on climate change.” Being lectured by the BBC on climate change is not a new development; it’s what the state-supported media service often does, and in hectoring tones. But is the BBC correct in its proclamations about what the “climate science” says?

Climate Alarmists and Their Detractors

The BBC seems institutionally committed to an alarmist position in its coverage of climate change issues. Many BBC programs seem driven to inject the “climate catastrophe” narrative into every energy-related news item. Stephen Sakur’s pointed remarks to Guyana’s president on the country’s rapid emergence as an oil and gas exporter were unexceptional in this regard.

The response on social media to the viral clip is telling. Here is a short selection from X on March 29 and 30:

Chris Rose (over 130,000 followers): “This is magnificent to watch. The President of Guyana truly put the BBC in its place. When sanctimony and pomposity meets [sic] sense and modesty.”

Simon Ateba (over 670,000 followers): “EXPLOSIVE: President Mohamed  Irfaan Ali (@presidentaligy) of Guyana obliterates @BBC journalist Stephen Sackur (@stephensackur) over climate change hypocrisy. ‘No, no, I’m not done yet!’ WATCH.”

Dilly Hussain  (over 110,000 followers): “LET ME STOP YOU RIGHT THERE!” An absolute masterclass shutdown by President Mohamed Irfaan Ali of Guyana when probed by @BBCHARDtalk’s Stephen Sackur on his country’s new found oil and gas fields and the West’s concerns about “carbon emissions”.

Visegrád 24 (over 970,000 followers): “I am going to lecture you on climate change,” says Guyana President @presidentaligy to BBC journalist Stephen Sackur, as he pushes back against the journalist attempting to lecture the Caribbean leader about oil being bad for the environment.”

The headlines of leading newspapers on March 30 reflected these social media messages:

The Telegraph: “Watch: Guyana’s president scolds BBC presenter for climate change ‘lecture.’”

Times of India: “‘Are you in their pockets?’: Guyanese President calls out reporter for Western hypocrisy.”

Fox News: “Video of Guyana’s president snapping back at BBC reporter’s climate quiz goes viral: ‘Let me stop you.’”

Hypocrisy As the Default Option in Climate Change Narratives

What is of interest here is the inherently hypocritical nature of the interactions between representatives of developed countries and those of developing ones concerning energy and climate policies. Some of the most apparent of such interactions occur during the UN’s annual COP (“Conference of Parties”) climate summits.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres, never one to shy from hyperbolic pronouncements, warns of a “code red for humanity. The alarm bells are deafening, and the evidence is irrefutable.” Indeed, based on dubious “hockey-stick” global-warming models formulated in the West, the secretary-general proclaims the approach of the “era of global boiling.”

At COP26, held in 2021 in Glasgow, Western leaders addressed those making up 80% of humanity in speeches that reeked of carbon imperialism (here, here, and here). Their message can be fairly summarized as follows:

We pledge climate finance to help you. There are promising new energy technologies to achieve our goals of net zero by 2050. The outlook for new jobs and economic growth are limitless with solar and wind power, electric vehicles, green hydrogen and carbon capture and sequestration. However, we must stop all new fossil fuel investments now! You must give up fossil fuels or else the planet is doomed.

Faced with the increasingly untenable hypocrisy of the Western elites discouraging fossil fuel use in the developing world, the pushback by leaders such as Guyana’s President Ali is no surprise. In 2015, the Indian government’s then-chief economic adviser Arvind Subramaniam spoke in no uncertain terms of a new carbon imperialism: “The rich world’s move against fossil fuels is a disaster for India, and other poorer countries.”

In the lead-up to COP27 held in Sharm Al Sheikh, Egypt in 2022, Africa’s top energy official, Amani Abou-Zeid, the African Union Commissioner for Infrastructure and Energy, said that African countries will push for “a common energy position that sees fossil fuels as necessary to expanding economies and electricity access.”

At the COP28 climate summit held in Dubai, UAE, Dr. Sultan Al Jaber, president of the summit and CEO of Abu Dhabi National Oil Company, rebutted questions from Mary Robinson, a former UN special envoy for climate change: “There is no science out there, or no scenario out there, that says that the phase-out of fossil fuel is what’s going to achieve 1.5 C [maximum global temperature increase].” In an interview, he said that “You’re asking for a phase-out of fossil fuels . . . Please, help me, show me the roadmap for a phase-out of fossil fuel that will allow for sustainable socio-economic development, unless you want to take the world back into caves.”

URL: Cartoons by Josh

That’s Enough Already!

Germany, the world leader in green energy ambitions, provides the best lesson of untenable hypocrisy when faced with the real-world constraints of physics and economics. In 2022, the country faced the prospect of entering winter without adequate energy supplies. It had shut down its nuclear power plants and lost access to piped Russian natural gas by imposing sanctions against Moscow (which was then followed by the sabotage of the Nordstream pipeline). In this context, Germany quickly retreated to coal power generation, and it now plans to double its gas-fired power-generating capacity.

According to Doomberg, an energy and finance consultancy, Germany moved back to coal “with the speed and efficiency of the British evacuation of Dunkirk.” The IEA, the institution most responsible for the West’s clarion calls to stop fossil fuel investments, noted that Germany’s “significant reversal” drove European coal consumption up 9% in 2022. Energy security and the need to heat homes and keep lights on and factories humming trumped virtue-signaling climate goals – and Germany’s abject hypocrisy is obvious to many leaders in the developing world.

Guyana’s President Irfaan Ali has little to explain, much less apologize for, as his country rapidly emerges as an important South American exporter of hydrocarbons. Let the BBC’s reporters peddle their luxury beliefs to those who think they can afford them.

Dr. Tilak K. Doshi is an energy economist, independent consultant, and a Forbes contributor based in London.

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.

PRESS RELEASE: Whales die while Dominion Energy hides crucial information

A coalition of three public interest groups— CFACT (The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow), The Heartland Institute, and the National Legal and Policy Center filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to compel Dominion Energy to reveal the methods it intends to use to protect the critically endangered Right Whale from extinction. Dominion has hidden its species protection plan from public view.

From CFACT

Right Whale Female Died Last Week 50 Miles Off Virginia Coast

Dominion Energy Claims Its Whale Protection Information is ‘Confidential and Proprietary’

Three Public Interest Groups File Request Under Freedom Of Information Act To Obtain Dominion Energy’s Plan To Protect Endangered Whales

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

A coalition of three public interest groups— CFACT (The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow), The Heartland Institute, and the National Legal and Policy Center filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to compel Dominion Energy to reveal the methods it intends to use to protect the critically endangered Right Whale from extinction. Dominion has hidden its species protection plan from public view.

The FOIA request, filed April 2, seeks to compel the Bureau of Energy Management (BOEM) to release two documents that Dominion Energy has filed with BOEM, which explain the procedures the energy giant will use to ensure that its construction of a wind facility off the coast of Virginia will not result in harm to whales and other protected marine species. Dominion has marked these documents as “Proprietary and Confidential Business Information Exempt from Public Disclosure.”

This request is after the reported death March 30 of a critically endangered North Atlantic right whale near Virginia Beach—a female that was accompanied by a newborn calf. This marks the fourth documented North Atlantic Right Whale death in US waters this year. Researchers say there are as few as 350 right whales left in the North Atlantic, with only 70 of those animals being females capable of weaning a calf.

This latest right whale fatality was named “Catalogue No. 1950” by the New England Aquarium. She was at least 35 years old and was last seen alive with her calf off Amelia Island, Florida, on February 16. Experts do not expect the calf to survive without the support of its mother. According to the Clearwater Marine Aquarium’s aerial survey, the mother had successfully raised five prior calves.

On March 24, Heartland, CFACT, and NLPC filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking a preliminary injunction to stop Dominion Energy’s massive wind turbine project off the shore of Virginia. Now, this coalition is asking BOEM for expedited treatment of this request for documents on the grounds that it is “a matter of urgent and compelling public interest.” The group has requested a response to their demand for information in 10 business days rather than the usual 20 business days for less urgent requests.

Dominion Energy has stated in documents filed with BOEM that it intends to begin offshore construction activities no later than May 1. The project, if completed, will consist of 176 turbines, each with blades longer than a football field. The turbines will be manufactured by the Siemens Co. Earlier this year, Siemens took a financial write-down of $4.7 billion due to warranty payments caused by faulty turbine components.

The following statements may be used with attribution. For more information or to speak to any of the principals of this effort, please contact Jim Lakely, Director of Communications at The Heartland Institute, at jlakely@heartland.org or call/text 312-731-9364.

Craig Rucker, President of CFACT, has criticized Dominion’s project as a “get rich quick boondoggle”. He adds: “This is just one more indication of Dominion’s bad faith and attempted cover-up by sidestepping regulations that would not only protect the right whale but also help save many other marine species whose lives will be put in jeopardy by this unwanted and unnecessary project.”

H. Sterling Burnett, Director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center for Climate and Environmental Policy at The Heartland Institute, said: “There is nothing commercially proprietary about the impact of Dominion’s offshore activities on the North Atlantic Right Whale or other protected marine mammals and sea life. And there is nothing proprietary about their efforts to mitigate any impact. Such information is critical to the public’s ability to critically assess the impacts and its ability to comment on them with full knowledge.

“On this issue of fundamental importance, transparency is critical, yet Dominion has made it opaque, and the government, outrageously, has allowed it. Dominion and the government’s position appears to be: ‘Trust us, we are doing nothing wrong.’ But that is simply not good enough. Unless and until Dominion or the government releases the information in Dominion’s Appendices R and FF, and the public is allowed time to digest and comment on it, this project should be stayed by the courts, and all permitting ceased”.

Paul Kamenar, lead counsel for NLPC, said: “Federal regulations prohibit even one human-caused death per year if the right whale is to survive as a species. Robust review of the means by which Dominion intends to achieve that goal is the only way the public will accept the claim by Dominion that their protection of the Right Whale is adequate.”

James Taylor, President of the Heartland Institute, said: “I am totally perplexed why Dominion Energy believes it can obtain public approval of its wind factory by concealing its plan for protection of the right whale. How can protection of the right whale qualify as ‘confidential business information’ when at the same time Dominion is granted monopoly protection and a guaranteed rate of return on its assets?”

-###-

The Real Victors of the ECHR Climate Decision are Green Billionaires

The old ladies of Switzerland have had their day in the sun – treble Factor 50s all round – but the real plaudits for the recent idiotic climate change verdict from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) belong to the elite billionaire paymasters behind lawfare activists such as Greenpeace and Client Earth.

From The Daily Sceptic

BY CHRIS MORRISON

The old ladies of Switzerland have had their day in the sun – treble Factor 50s all round – but the real plaudits for the recent idiotic climate change verdict from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) belong to the elite billionaire paymasters behind lawfare activists such as Greenpeace and Client Earth. Greenpeace bankrolled the Swiss ladies and Client Earth supplied some of the legal arguments. The case is likely to throw a spotlight on the role that a few moneyed forces are playing in using the judicial system to enforce their insane Net Zero collectivisation on populations around the world. In Europe, the billionaires, who happily fund XR vandals as well as high-earning lawyers, are seeking to redefine the meaning of democracy. In the United States, as we shall see, extensive judge grooming is being undertaken to help the judiciary come to the correct political verdicts in the growing number of climate lawfare cases.

In its way, the ECHR verdict that politicians should somehow protect citizens from alleged human-caused climate change was a punishment beating handed down after a 2021 referendum in Switzerland rowed back on Net Zero. Jessica Simor KC represented the Swiss women and frequently acts for Client Earth. After the verdict she noted: “In Switzerland it’s particularly problematic because they have referendums… the people decided they didn’t want it. This is something that comes up all the time… the conflict between this idea of democracy as entailing… rights which matter irrespective of what the majority decides.”

The stupidity of the ECHR verdict need not detail us for too long since it has been widely discussed elsewhere. But it is surely relevant that most bad weather events have shown little discernible rise in frequency over the last 100 years, while mortality from these events has dropped by 99%. Quite why the United Kingdom is a member of this cultural dead-end of a court with its ‘jurists’ defining law to open borders and save us from the weather is a mystery, but again it need not detain us at this point. Suffice to say it suits Greenpeace, Client Earth and Jessica Simor KC to have a tame, like-minded body of legal social justice warriors to agree on their elite view of what matters, irrespective of how people actually vote.

Condemnation of the ECHR verdict has been widespread, with Net Zero Watch stating that climate catastrophism now represents a clear and present threat to the rule of law and democracy. Director Andrew Montford noted an astonishingly broad interpretation of existing human rights laws that had alarming parallels with what was seen in 1930s Germany. “The judicial activism of the European Court looks very much like the judicial activism under National Socialism,” he added.

As we have seen with attempts to groom journalists and politicians to catastrophise the weather and promote Net Zero, the same wealthy names crop up again and again. So it is with the growing number of lawfare outfits. Greenpeace bankrolled the Swiss case and it collects cash from wealthy donors and foundations around the world. It seeks to remove hydrocarbons from human energy supplies and it is against nuclear energy. It is not clear how the old ladies of Switzerland will survive winter when the wind stops blowing and the sun doesn’t shine in their icy mountain redoubt.

Client Earth has been heavily supported by the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation, the activist vehicle of Sir Christopher Hohn, one time paymaster of eco-vandals and law-breakers Extinction Rebellion. Hohn is a big contributor to another funder, the European Climate Foundation. Contributions are also forthcoming from green billionaires Michael Bloomberg and Jeremy Grantham, while even the British taxpayer chips in with a contribution from the Foreign Office. Quite why the British Conservative Government is helping to fund an operation that is likely to sue it in the courts is, of course, another mystery.

But if it is bad enough in Europe, climate lawfare is rapidly escalating out of control in the United States. Numerous actions against oil and gas companies are ongoing in a judicial system that is more obviously political than its European counterparts. It might not be surprising to learn therefore that billionaires through their tax-efficient foundations are attempting to re-educate judges around the idea that the climate is collapsing due to the action of humans, and in particular the wicked actions of those that supply 80% of industrial society’s current energy needs. 

Washington D.C.-based Environmental Law Institute is backed by billionaire foundation money and, according to Influence Watch, it received $500,000 from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation to set up the Climate Judiciary Project (CJP). According to Influence Watch, by May 2023 more than 1,000 judges have participated in the CJP program, which includes 13 curriculum modules. According to the CJP website, the goal is to provide “neutral, objective information” to the judiciary about the science of climate change as it is understood by the expert scientific community and relevant to current and future litigation”.

Needless to say, neutral and objective are not words that spring immediately to mind when examining some of the detailed curriculum notes. Misinformation is particularly rife in a module that suggests individual weather events can be attributed to longer term changes in the climate. The judges are told that it is now possible to use attributions techniques to link individual human-caused weather events to climate change. It is not, it is junk science from computer models and since any ‘results’ are unfalsifiable, they fail the first test of the true scientific process. The best known ‘attribution’ service is called World Weather Attribution and is partly funded by Jeremy Grantham. Despite this, CJP claims bizarrely that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change couldn’t hold the view that human influence has warmed the planet without the many attribution analyses that are said to underpin it.

The distinguished science writer Roger Pielke Jr. is unimpressed with weather attribution work, noting: “I can think of no other area of research where the relaxing of rigour and standards has been encouraged by researchers in order to generate claims more friendly to headlines, political advocacy and even lawsuits”.

Paymaster Larry Kramer, President of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, is more supportive: “With the growth in climate related litigation, judges need this kind of education to be prepared to weight scientific evidence and make better informed decisions.”

Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.

African nation becomes ‘first country’ to outlaw entry of gas cars!  EVs only! Ethiopia announces plans to ban import of gas-powered vehicles ‘to reduce its output of planet-warming pollution’ — But only 54% of people have ‘access to electricity’

Ethiopia announced earlier this year its plan to ban the import of all non-electric automobiles, becoming the first country to outlaw the entry of internal combustion engine vehicles.

From Climate Depot

By Marc Morano

By Kaiyo FunakiApril 6, 2024

Ethiopia announced earlier this year its plan to ban the import of all non-electric automobiles, becoming the first country to outlaw the entry of internal combustion engine vehicles.

Electrek noted that specifics were scant but that the resolution served as a win for the nation’s environmental impact and economy. “A decision has been made, that automobiles cannot enter Ethiopia unless they are electric ones,” Minister for Transport and Logistics Alemu Sime said.

As stated in its Ten Years Development Plan, officials want to reduce Ethiopia’s output of planet-warming pollution from the transportation sector from 41 million metric tons (about 45 million tons) to 27.8 million metric tons (about 30.6 million tons) of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2030.

Additionally, the country’s Long-Term Low Emission And Climate Resilient Development Strategy report allocated $13.44 billion through 2050 toward charging stations, electric vehicles, and electric buses.

However, the most recent data from the World Bank shows that just over 54% of people in Ethiopia have access to electricity. Furthermore, there are potential financial barriers to purchasing EVs and the lack of charging infrastructure. As such, Sime noted that addressing the latter point remained a high priority.

Though it’s unclear what the exact details of Ethiopia’s ban on dirty-energy-based automobiles will be, it will mark a huge step for the country to meet its pollution-reduction goals.

The Greening Earth vs Enemies of Climate Truth

Earth benefits from increasing greening that reverberates through entire ecosystems! Rising CO2 and its fertilization effects makes ecosystems more robust and more resilient. Greening debunks claims by enemies of climate truth that rising CO2 is causing ecosystem collapse!

By Jim Steele

Earth benefits from increasing greening that reverberates through entire ecosystems! Rising CO2 and its fertilization effects makes ecosystems more robust and more resilient. Greening debunks claims by enemies of climate truth that rising CO2 is causing ecosystem collapse!

Transcript

There’s been great news that Earth has been greening, and more greening means more photosynthesis, which is the foundation of all food webs. This means more resilient ecosystems. But, the enemies of climate truth want you to believe rising CO2 is killing plants and creating deadly tipping points. NASA posted this illustration showing from 1982 to 2009, using a leaf area index, that the planet was benefiting from a persistent and widespread increase in the growing season. Up to 50% of the global vegetated area had increased its leaf area, and scientists determined 70% of that greening was due to CO2’s fertilization effects, which benefits are reverberating throughout entire ecosystems. In contrast, just 4% of the globe showed decreasing vegetation, or browning.

Now, justifiably, Jordan Peterson told his 5 million followers that rising CO2 has been a great benefit to our world’s ecosystems. CO2 is essential for plants, but as a result of his political heresy, Peterson became a target of the climate crisis thought police and the bogus fact-checking by Rosh, who is intent on convincing you the greening trend was stopped and the climate crisis remains. 

But greening benefits have not been restricted to land plants. Between 1998 and 2018, scientists determined the Arctic Ocean’s plankton had also increased the ocean’s primary production by 57%. More food for fish and seals means more food for polar bears, contributing to the observed increasing bear populations. Such thriving ecosystems make ordinary thinking people mistrust doomsday narratives like Greta Thunberg’s rant that ecosystems are collapsing and people and animals are dying.

So, to support Greta’s fears and counteract any wrong thinking from greening’s good news, publicity stunts around the world organized people dressed in white lab coats proclaiming “the science is clear, there is a climate crisis.” Such contradictory evidence and narratives gravely affect people vulnerable to delusional disorders, making them unable to know what’s real and what is imagined. Before, only lone wackos told us the planet’s end is near, and now, thanks to organized media campaigns, elementary school children are taught our world is dying. Hordes of older people cry we have only 12 years to save the planet. They convince our children with delusions that the Earth is on fire, oceans are boiling, and that they will die from climate change.

So, how can so many people believe doomsday politics in a greening world? This is where the climate crisis thought police intervene to ensure you embrace their catastrophic version of reality, so that you will act the way they want us to, supposedly to save the planet. Rosh Salgado D’Arcy is getting his PhD in climate communications. His tweets, Tik Toks, and videos denigrate critical thinking skeptics as deniers. He reveals that a university degree in climate communications is really a euphemism for the biased training of climate crisis thought police, mastering PhD levels of Orwellian doublespeak. Rosh wants you to believe CO2’s observed benefits were fleeting and can’t be trusted, that rising CO2 only has a net negative effect on the future. But fact-checking Rosh reveals his deception; in Orwellian pig logic, all science is equal, but some science is more equal than others.

Climate communicators don’t promote research which, when its facts debunk a good climate crisis narrative. So, a 2019 study by Winkler that determined 40% of the Earth’s natural vegetation still shows significant increasing trends in leaf area. Rosh doesn’t communicate those results. 

However, Rosh eagerly communicates shaky conclusions by Chen 2022 that support his doomsday forecast, as if that is the only imagined reality people should ever believe. W. Rosh highlights Chen’s claim that greening has reversed across 90% of the global vegetated areas since the year 2000. In contrast to Winkler’s 40%, Chen claims greening only continues in just 10% of the global vegetated areas due to a warming tipping point. Rosh backs that imagined reality up with a Scientific American article by The Washington Post, well-known alarmist journalist Chelsea Harvey, that also promotes Chen’s meme that the greening stopped 20 years ago.

Rosh dishonestly ignores that Chen’s 2022 study presents very contradictory results, so your view of reality solely depends on which graph you want to embrace to determine trends in leaf area. Results from three different satellite databases and models were used. Using the AVHRR database and linear regression statistic, Chen’s results contradicted Chen’s conclusions, showing increased greening has not stopped but has continued since the year 2000, with peak greening at the study’s conclusion in 2018. I highlighted their gray trend line with red. Their second database, designated GLASS, also showed peak greening in 2018. Likewise, a linear regression determined the greening trend has continued since the year 2000. 

However, by using different statistical models that look for assumed turning points, Chen argued that since the late 1990s, the Earth was browning, despite the most recent increase in greening. Chen’s browning trend is highlighted by my blue line. The third database used by Chen 2022, labeled LAI3g, diverges from the other two databases, with its outlier data for leaf area dramatically dropping off in the last few years. Still, linear regressions show a slight overall rising trend in the Earth’s greening. But Chen’s use of LAI3g data presents other serious problems. The original 2016 study promoting the Earth’s greening trend and CO2’s fertilization effect, they also use the same LAI3g database. However, while the 2016 showed peak greening around 2010 and 2011, Chen’s version suspiciously moves the greening peak back to the 1990s. Here’s the green arrows for comparison. By that sleight of hand, Chen’s 20-year browning trend was created, yet Rosh never communicates these scientific problems to the public.

So why would Rosh and Chelsea Harvey emphasize the dubious science of Chen 2022? Apparently, it was the best support for their climate crisis narratives. Chen justified his exaggerated browning and, I quote, “on the inhibitive effects of excessive optimal temperatures,” which sounds like too much of a good thing. They also emphasized increased drying out of the land. So Rosh finishes his so-called fact check of greening and Jordan Peterson by proclaiming his climate belief that the net effect of rising CO2 is bad for plants. To that end, he regurgitates the fabricated meme that CO2 has increased the intensity of heat waves, even though that requires Rosh to ignore EPA data showing, in truth, observed heat waves were worse in the 1930s, with no increasing trend. 

Rosh’s false narrative also suggested rising CO2 is causing greater intensity of rainfall and droughts, but scientists have found only 6% of the world has experienced any significant decrease in rainfall (the orange areas), and most of that decrease happens over the oceans. The remaining reduced areas of rainfall partially explain the local areas of browning. 

So, for pushing false realities, increasing people’s delusional disorders, and for uncritically pushing the party line that demonizes CO2, despite the Earth’s greening and greater resilience, Rosh wins our Enemy of Truth award. So, when you see his climate tweets or TikTok, realize it’s just Rosh’s hogwash. 

If Solar Panels Are So Clean, Why Do They Produce So Much Toxic Waste?

The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) in 2016 estimated there was about 250,000 metric tonnes of solar panel waste in the world at the end of that year. IRENA projected that this amount could reach 78 million metric tonnes by 2050.

By Michael Shellenberger

The last few years have seen growing concern over what happens to solar panels at the end of their life.

The Forbes has the story.

Consider the following statements:

  • The problem of solar panel disposal “will explode with full force in two or three decades and wreck the environment” because it “is a huge amount of waste and they are not easy to recycle.”
  • “The reality is that there is a problem now, and it’s only going to get larger, expanding as rapidly as the PV industry expanded 10 years ago.”
  • “Contrary to previous assumptions, pollutants such as lead or carcinogenic cadmium can be almost completely washed out of the fragments of solar modules over a period of several months, for example by rainwater.”

Were these statements made by the right-wing Heritage Foundation? Koch-funded global warming deniers? The editorial board of the Wall Street Journal?

None of the above. Rather, the quotes come from a senior Chinese solar official, a 40-year veteran of the U.S. solar industry, and research scientists with the German Stuttgart Institute for Photovoltaics.

With few environmental journalists willing to report on much of anything other than the good news about renewables, it’s been left to environmental scientists and solar industry leaders to raise the alarm.

“I’ve been working in solar since 1976 and that’s part of my guilt,” the veteran solar developer told Solar Power World last year. “I’ve been involved with millions of solar panels going into the field, and now they’re getting old.”

The Trouble With Solar Waste

The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) in 2016 estimated there was about 250,000 metric tonnes of solar panel waste in the world at the end of that year. IRENA projected that this amount could reach 78 million metric tonnes by 2050.

Solar panels often contain lead, cadmium, and other toxic chemicals that cannot be removed without breaking apart the entire panel. “Approximately 90% of most PV modules are made up of glass,” notes San Jose State environmental studies professor Dustin Mulvaney. “However, this glass often cannot be recycled as float glass due to impurities. Common problematic impurities in glass include plastics, lead, cadmium and antimony.”

Researchers with the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) undertook a study for U.S. solar-owning utilities to plan for end-of-life and concluded that solar panel “disposal in “regular landfills [is] not recommended in case modules break and toxic materials leach into the soil” and so “disposal is potentially a major issue.”

California is in the process of determining how to divert solar panels from landfills, which is where they currently go, at the end of their life.

California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), which is implementing the new regulations, held a meeting last August with solar and waste industry representatives to discuss how to deal with the issue of solar waste. At the meeting, the representatives from industry and DTSC all acknowledged how difficult it would be to test to determine whether a solar panel being removed would be classified as hazardous waste or not.

The DTSC described building a database where solar panels and their toxicity could be tracked by their model numbers, but it’s not clear DTSC will do this.

“The theory behind the regulations is to make [disposal] less burdensome,” explained Rick Brausch of DTSC. “Putting it as universal waste eliminates the testing requirement.”

The fact that cadmium can be washed out of solar modules by rainwater is increasingly a concern for local environmentalists like the Concerned Citizens of Fawn Lake in Virginia, where a 6,350 acre solar farm to partly power Microsoft data centers is being proposed.

“We estimate there are 100,000 pounds of cadmium contained in the 1.8 million panels,” Sean Fogarty of the group told me. “Leaching from broken panels damaged during natural events — hail storms, tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc. — and at decommissioning is a big concern.”  

There is real-world precedent for this concern. A tornado in 2015 broke 200,000 solar modules at southern California solar farm Desert Sunlight.

“Any modules that were broken into small bits of glass had to be swept from the ground,” Mulvaney explained, “so lots of rocks and dirt got mixed in that would not work in recycling plants that are designed to take modules. These were the cadmium-based modules that failed [hazardous] waste tests, so were treated at a [hazardous] waste facility. But about 70 percent of the modules were actually sent to recycling, and the recycled metals are in new panels today.”

And when Hurricane Maria hit Puerto Rico last September, the nation’s second largest solar farm, responsible for 40 percent of the island’s solar energy, lost a majority of its panels.

Read the full story here.