GREENWASHED
- dyounger6
- 24 hours ago
- 7 min read
“Few problems are less recognized, but more important than, the accelerating disappearance of the earth’s biological resources. In pushing other species to extinction, humanity is busy sawing off the limb on which it is perched.” ― Paul Ehrlich
Science in the way that it is disbursed is sometimes difficult for the general population to understand. This is particularly so when it is misrepresented – deliberately or accidentally, it makes no difference – by others. Misrepresentation can be made worse by the tendency in science to compartmentalise and this is the fundamental problem behind the understanding of climate change
.
In 1962 environmentalist Rachel Carson published her book, Silent Spring. Although aimed at the indiscriminate use of artificial pesticides, it contained a further indicator of the risks of species extinction affecting the food chain, slowly opening up the subject of biodiversity which got another kick in 1966 when James Lovelock published his Gaia theory which, while not getting much approval at the time, eventually became a subject for serious consideration,
But we were shortly to be pushed in another direction with the release of information claiming that the Earth’s climate risked being affected due to an increase in atmospheric CO2 which, scientists concluded could only be “man made” – they did not specify which human activity could be responsible, only that it was not natural and therefore man made. But events were shortly to move the debate in one particular direction – one which seems to remain to this day.
Research undertaken on behalf of an oil company became public knowledge. This research, although extensive, covered only the rate of emissions, other potential factors were not included but with the issue of the warnings already sounded together with the increase in atmospheric CO2 and the origin of the research, it became a case of job done and the smoking gun was firmly in the hands of the oil companies. No concern was attached to the possibility that other factors might be in play.
In the late 1990s a group of academics embarked on a project to calculate the exact amount of emissions from fossil fuels on a decade by decade basis, going back a hundred years. Although the project was, in essence, simply statistics gathering, some consideration was given to factors such as the natural increase in CO2 which had been suggested as happening as we reached the end of this interglacial warming period but when they published their findings in 2000, they made the bald statement that they could not account for half of all CO2 emissions. This raised little interest as the climate lobby was on a roll. They knew who was to blame and no further discussion was necessary.
If we look at greenhouse gas emissions for 2000 we can – or should- see the immediate problem relating to the almost religious reliance on so-called renewable energy. The chart shows that only 15.3% of electricity generation translates into emissions and, while in the following half-century, some movement in areas of industry has changed that percentage, this has largely been achieved at cost to resources and increased CO2 output from extraction. And it gets worse. Agriculture is responsible for 13.5% of emissions, both methane and nitrous oxide, and the degradation in land use adds a whopping 18.2%. Add to that transportation and the elements of fossil fuel use which, as of today, can only be reduced or stopped by ceasing those activities which produce emissions then 68.5% of all emissions cannot be reduced or addressed by wind and solar energy alone.
In 1998 Danish academic Bjorn Lomborg published his book The Skeptical Environmentalist. When the English version came out in 2001 all hell broke loose. There’s no need to go into the detail here except to say that his basic premise was that we should examine all the effects and paths to be taken without putting all our eggs in one basket. He even set up the Copenhagen Consensus Centre for this purpose. But the kickback from the science community was brutal and little was achieved from this project.
At the same time, however, two other things happened. One was that environmental scientists released their latest research on the reduction of biodiversity on the planet and the interdependence of species. The other was the endorsement of many in the business sector across the planet including the CBI in the UK of the great opportunity that renewables held for future business development :-
“Nature doesn’t matter. So, look how you describe the Green New Deal. Millions of new jobs, high-paying jobs, and that means greater income and that means you can go home and purchase a new electric vehicle, and you can get that new refrigerator, or whatever it is.
When we treat the symptoms of climate change, how are we treating it? We are treating it by assuming the best way out is through new technologies that require massive capital investment, major opportunities for profit the creation of thousands, indeed, millions of green jobs all of which means the economy will continue to grow, and we will need more and more consumption and production of everything.” - Sofia Pineda Ochoa
But environmental science hasn’t been static. Research into areas such as the loss of biodiversity and the reduction of carbon capture in the biomass together with more accurate assessments of soil carbon have produced increasingly alarming predictions of what will happen if the world does not take major steps to reverse the way and extent to which we are raping our land and resources. While some may try to argue that it is due to climate change, it is not. Climate change is one of the results of our destruction of the biosphere. In a recent article published in Nature magazine, one figure stands out – if we had protected our biosphere and maintained its carbon capture ability, excess CO2 would be about 120ppm less that it currently is. No one would be talking about climate change. Meanwhile the world is getting hysterical about renewables while practically nothing is being done about the real problem. The handful of small-scale rewilding projects around the world are taking place amidst indifference and sometimes outright opposition while tree planting doesn’t come near to addressing the net loss of trees globally – 28000 per minute!
While it doesn’t take a genius to figure out why there is virtually no global endeavour to address the real problem relating not only to global warming but also to the more serious problem of maintaining a habitable environment overall including using resources at a sustainable level, but why the enthusiasm for renewables which address a symptom but not the problem? The answer of course is money.
When the business sector came on board early on, it wasn’t about saving the planet but about the business opportunities involved in green energy and, in fact, it was the business sector who invented the term “Green New Deal”.
In 2015 the “Energy Transitions Commission” came into being. It sounds very official but is just a collection of members, self-appointed at first and later added by invitation. One could be forgiven for imagining that its membership consists of scientists and experts in the field of power generation so let’s look at it:
Representatives of:- Petronas, Shell, BP, Rio Tinto, Morgan Stanley, Rothschild, Blackrock, Vattenfall, HSBC - the list goes on. And it’s these people who are advising governments, including our own, on energy policy while we are continually persuaded to treat one of the symptoms of biodegradation rather than its cause.
What of the cost of this project? And what are the future prospects?
In terms of cost and, of course, its reflection on the prices we pay, we are entirely in the hands of private enterprise and while the cost to bill payers is, we are told, determined by the cost of gas, the reality is that the cost of giving us renewables is very much greater than we are given to believe and that the price will not decline. The narrative we are fed quietly ignores the real cost of not just windmills and solar panels but completely realigning the national grid, the addition of HVDC links, converter stations, battery storage (BESS) installations and, of course, the pylons necessary for this. These costs are ongoing. Some windmills last longer than others but, across the board, the average life is 13.7 years. The HVDC lines have a life of 20 years and the BESS installations need their lithium batteries replaced every 10 years. Whether they are replaced with new or recycled does not matter, it is all still a cost and a drain on resources and in the Scottish highlands is threatening to turn one of the most beautiful landscapes in Europe into an industrial wasteland.
The increase in energy demand, largely because of the impending proliferation of AI data centres which are hugely demanding of energy and, by the way, water, is outstripping new energy production and leading to an energy crisis which industry leaders are predicting for the end of 2028. The green energy project is almost entirely in the hands of private enterprise which will continue to aggressively push it, not for the sake of the planet but for their own profit margins. In the meantime the serious and extinction threatening threat to biodiversity is still being pushed to the side. Dealing with this requires global consensus and internationally enforceable regulation possibly even requiring a completely different financial system and constraints on how the business system works. It is easy to see how unattractive such a scenario is to the stock markets and finance houses.
There is more to come as I extend my research but this is all for now except to say, finally, that you may wish to read the link below to a Guardian article published almost three years ago. Read it and ask yourselves how much local communities have actually had their concerns heard let alone respected.
Coming next, just a foretaste:
And because you have to move many tons of earth to extract even a small amount of copper, that means- Well, have a look. — I came across a Sky News story about a town in Chile that was literally getting buried under the waste truck of the mine and realized how massive these operations were. — You’re getting a few grams per ton of material mined.
So, if you want a few hundred kilograms of this material, you need to mine thousands and thousands of kilograms of ore which is then treated chemically, and that results in massive air and water pollution and the costs to the environment are enormous. And very often, there are huge social costs because mines are often in rural communities whose water supply and lands are destroyed in the mining process.
- Sofia and I saw that copper was not the only thing that was being mined for renewable energy.
So, there’s aluminium, and chromium, and nickel, and lithium and cobalt, which apparently is coming from Africa and causing problems there too.
- It’s estimated that some minerals, there will have to be a 50 or 60 fold increase in the quantities of various rare earths and minerals that go into the solar panels and the wind towers, and so on.
Comments