When climate change activist Bill McKibben spoke last month in Santa Fe about climate change and the green building boom, he said that instead of a not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) mentality, people should welcome solar panels and wind turbines. "Don't be the person who hires a lawyer," McKibben said, "and gets in the way of the future."
Call me a NIMBY: I don't want to take from the Earth faster than it can replenish or waste faster than it can absorb. I can't ignore that manufacturing, operating and discarding solar PVs, industrial wind facilities, batteries and e-vehicles require fossil fuels, water, extractions and chemicals and generate toxic waste. Well-funded plans to slow climate changes by "renewables" inflict serious damage to ecosystems and communities just like fossil fuels and gas-guzzling vehicles.
Call me a NIMBY: I'd welcome more people questioning and discussing the hazards of "green" technologies:
When you calculate the footprint of solar PVs and EVs, do you include the coal and trees that go into making their silicon?
Why cut carbon-absorbing trees to make way for solar panels?
Why risk losing whales to offshore wind turbines?
If a solar facility uses batteries to store energy, have professional engineers certified that the batteries will not catch fire? (They do catch fire, which then prohibits nearby residents from leaving home, running ventilation systems or opening windows until toxins clear.)
If the solar or wind facility does not have batteries, then what kind of fuel powers the electricity at night or on cloudy or non-windy days?
When panels crack and chemicals including PFAs leach into groundwater, what's the developer's cleanup plan?
Solar panels are hazardous waste, and turbine blades do not biodegrade. When a facility shuts down, who pays to remove its hazardous waste?
As energy analyst Mark P. Mills articulates, unless we change the laws of physics, solar and wind systems cannot power our society; and they cannot reduce our harms to the Earth. Why invest in solar, wind, batteries and EVs when they cannot meet our society's extraordinary (and increasing) power demands or our targets to reduce carbon emissions?
Call me a NIMBY. I can't quit these questions.
Electric Vehicles (EVs)
While their EV inventory grows, Toyota, General Motors and Honda question their viability. Apparently, consumers don't buy EVs: they cost too much, have inadequate infrastructure and require lifestyle adjustments (a gas guzzler takes only four minutes to refill). While I'd welcome this list including ways that EVs ravage ecosystems, I won't complain about these CEOs' questions.
Does the Biden administration know what these CEOs report? The administration has started working with Lithium Americas Corporation to secure a $1 billion loan to mine yet more wild land for lithium (in addition to Thacker Pass) at the Oregon/Nevada border. (EV batteries depend on lithium.)
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
