When I read about households or communities that claim to reduce their ecological footprint by using solar PVs, industrial wind turbines, batteries and/or e-vehicles, I fret and sigh. Calling these technologies "green" is like weighing an elephant by the tip of its tail. It ignores the energy, extractions, water, toxic waste, CO2 emissions, intercontinental shipping and wildlife habitat losses involved in manufacturing these products, their infrastructures and their end-of-life waste. It fails to recognize the ecological impacts of "green" products on the largely indigenous communities that make their raw materials.
"Green" is an unregulated marketing term, just like "zero-emitting", "clean" and "sustainable". Manufacturers use it freely-- without calculating their products from cradles-to-graves.
People who aim to reduce their ecological footprint deserve cradle-to-grave analysis and respectful, comprehensive answers to their questions... before they purchase a product or technology.
Here are my best reports about mapping our technosphere to discover our biosphere and some ways to rethink our crises.
My hearty thanks to all readers.
THE POWER GRID
Discovering Power's Traps: a primer for electricity users
Fire hazards at the battery storage system coming near you
SOS: San Onofre Syndrome: Nuclear Power's Legacy
A Time-Sensitive Invitation to Protect New Mexico from Smart Meters' Fire Hazards
SOLAR PVs
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
