for my next OLO piece, I want to offer my opinion about policy possibilities and limitations with regard to the state of the global environment in 2050.

Hence, I am interested in the opinions of OLO readers.

Well Chris let's hear what you think the position of China, India and the rest of Asia will be in 2050?
I never saw any solar panels or windmills in Vietnam who are planning another six large coal power plants. That's more than Australia has ever had. I also saw a dearth of electric appliances there. They are going to forgo what you enjoy are they? I am making fun of you Chris but you know that.
Good luck with the upcoming project!

Chris,

I am interested in adding my two bits. I am an independent environmental sociologist researching what scientists and scholars have to say. My particular area of specialisation is water.

I would hope that the AGW/CC denialists also join in because it will be an opportunity for them to learn something.

i look forward to all contributions.

I am optimistic that more will be done to address environmental concerns, not just greenhouse gas emissions, but I will write my piece from a political perspective of how the world is likely to be given the competitive nature of international relations.

whereas I may argue that human activity is linked to global warming, I am sure that those who disagree may still have some good ideas at how the world bests adapts to rising temperatures.

at the end of the day, that may be our best approach, albeit I hope we can temper the rise of green house gas emissions.

Chris,

You made mention elsewhere that you have a background in politics. Could you elucidate on that so that we can better understand where you are coming from?

I completed a PhD and First Class Honours in political science at Monash University.

However, I prefer to call it political studies as I have never thought the subject ever warranted science status if that makes sense.

But, I want to qualify my thoughts about qualifications.

Many of the smartest people I have ever met had no tertiary qualifications.

This observation was reinforced by my 7-8 year experience in university employment where I found that even professors talk bs and overrate their opinions and published works.

In fact, I have had much better policy debates when working in factories and building sites, talking to veterans at the races, and even sparring on OLO.

In a liberal democracy, which I love, all opinions are valid and can influence policy outcomes (including the environment)

to help promoter the discussion, here is the start of opinion piece which I invite readers to add to, support or critique as I write up body of argument.

"Can we can optimistic about the planet environmental future?

I give a qualified yes, but believe that the environment by 2050 will be vastly different from what it is today even for the most progressive of nations in terms of any determination to temper/address environmental degradation.

My argument will focus on two points that will highlight both policy possibilities and limitations.

One, in line with the reality that humanity always adapts to new challenges, increasing awareness about environmental degradation will lead to better strategies at both the national and international levels to address related problems.

Two, the competitive nature of international relations and the reliance upon economic and population growth may ensure that many nations continue to lag with regard to their environmental commitment, thus complicating global efforts.

"policy possibilities"?

Why some people never miss an occasion to try and play God, like a child sitting in a toy cart, turning the little wheel round and round as if they control the cart's movement, which is actually rocked by an engine or pushed by its parents!

2050? Can you even tell about tomorrow? Will humanity still be here? Would it even matter? At most you may pray "give us today our daily bread", but if you are looking for a winning strategy then there is one: God's will shall always prevail, so if you align yourself to Him and say "God's will be done", then you can never lose!

And for those who are not inclined to think in terms of God, just let nature take its course, why worry?

And by-the-way, there is no global environment, no such thing at all: every one experiences the environment they deserve and so it shall ever be, no two experiences are the same.

Chris, should all opinions really be considered valid and influential in political decision-making? For example, should people who think the earth is flat be able to influence air transport policy? I realise this is an extreme example, but if everyone's opinion is equally valid and influential, where do we draw the line? Do we go with the majority opinion? What if they are wrong and minority opinion is correct?

Chris,

Excellent.

I started out with a BE. Thought it was dead end stuff so went on to do a BA and two MAs and have drifted into environmental sociology and hoping to make an MA thesis out of independent qualitative research I started several years ago. I didn't want to be in academia and stayed in the engineering game for my livelihood.

I dabbled in some political sociology at one point of my studies so I have a good idea of the things you cover and hope to have some good discussions with you.

My specialty is water. We are 60% water. The weather is water. The planet is covered by 70% water so why call it Earth? We should call it Water!

all opinions are never equal in terms of shaping an individual's opinion.

But all opinions are equal in terms of their ability to win a seat and elect a member of parliament, the main ingredient of liberal democratic policy outcomes. of course, the media and interest groups also help shape individual and public opinion.

the legitimacy of individual rights in a liberal democracy gives every person the right to express their views, but the social part of liberal democracy is also crucial in ensuring that policy consensus can prevail by winning a majority of opinions.

now I know some feel disdain for certain policy approaches in Australia, but I would argue passionately that we get it right most times in Australia.

even with regard to greenhouse gas emissions, where I have argued Australia failed, we still have cut our per capita emissions which is certainly better than nothing

Not sure why you would need other people's opinions to express your own opinion, Chris. The usual way is to express your opinion first, after which you will most certainly hear the opinions of others - hopefully expressed civilly.

I actually want to hear about ideas about how we can or cannot address the environment.

A number of OLO readers appear to have some expertise and sound logic from thought and experience, so I want to consider their offerings
on this one.

It is a forum after all.

Chris,

One scholar has stated that Western democracy and capitalism cannot achieve a sustainable environment. That it is only socialism that has the capacity to do this.

i certainly disagree with that.

if there are successful environmental solutions from such nations, please point them out.

if you have a society where all dissenting opinions are legitimised, then you are much more likely to address policy shortcomings.

in socialist societies, which nearly always operate as totalitarian regimes, dissent is hardly going to be tolerated and the truth is often hidden.

a lot of environmental reforms in China since 2011 were driven by public opinion mocking the government story about city pollution, as i will cite in article.

And look what happened after the invention of the printer.

The poor church and its reliance on a few books soon gave way to challenges from many new ideas that were read by many to rightfully challenge the status quo.

why else do supposed socialist societies try to curtail internet sources and the press? Their silly elites nearly always want to control the agenda.

I heard a stupid piece on the ABC a few weeks ago where they actually discussed banning global warming denialists who opposed the human activity link.

now that is a dangerous path to pursue.

Chris,

I agree with you that socialism is not the panacea for achieving a sustainable environment.

Problem with socialism is that it is just a much driven by the idea of progress as capitalism is, if not even more so. I assume everyone is used to seeing socialist workers depicted with their heads and faces lifted in the direction of progress, commonly depicted on propaganda posters.

Dear Cossomby,

«For example, should people who think the earth is flat be able to influence air transport policy? I realise this is an extreme example, but if everyone's opinion is equally valid and influential, where do we draw the line? Do we go with the majority opinion? What if they are wrong and minority opinion is correct?»

The question ought to be, who authorised you to begin with, to create air-transport policies for others!

What you claim in effect is "I know, they don't, therefore I have the right to dictate my policies to others". The name for that is 'paternalism'.

Come elections, we don't vote on opinions nor on facts, but on the policies of our choice. Our free choice may or may not depend on correct knowledge: one could choose, for example, to treat the earth as if it was flat even while they know that it is round - their choice is as good as yours. Where to draw the line? At not translating your knowledge and views into actions that affect others' lives without their consent. Even if you know better, that makes no difference.

---

Dear Mr. Opinion,

«Problem with socialism is that it is just a much driven by the idea of progress as capitalism is, if not even more so.»

Indeed, what is "progress" anyway? Doesn't it depend on where one wants to go? I am not interested in where either socialism or capitalism want to take me.

70% water so why call it Earth?

Because WE LIVE on Land, tjhat's why !
The environment will go on with or without us humans. Humans won't make it unless their numbers are reduced either through voluntary birth control or less medical interference !
It won't be long now before we get a really bad virus seeping through humanity !

individual,

70% water so why call it Earth? It's a joke. When I snap my fingers you will wake up from wherever you are.

SNAP! SNAP! You are now in the land of the living.

And you looked around in amazement and said "It won't be long now before we get a really bad virus seeping through humanity!" and someone showed you a picture of a coronavirus victim and you went back to sleep.

One way we could improve the environment is to teach third world nations to pick up rubbish. Some beaches I have been to have are putried. If we stopped all the ridiculous virtue signalling and preaching the man made gw myth then their would be heaps of money to clean the planet many times over. Unfortunaetly to many hugely overpaid unelected bureaucrats would lose their livelyhoods if we did anything practical. Like in California the fools rejoice over banning plastic straws while having the streets littered with used junkie needles.

For the 'true believers' like Greta and the extinction rebellion thugs we could export to China or Mumbia where they might learn something other than hypocrisy.

Yuyutsu, I am puzzled by your response to my comment. I wasn't offering any personal opinion or claiming to set air transport policy.

Chris wrote: 'In a liberal democracy, which I love, all opinions are valid and can influence policy outcomes (including the environment.)'

My query was about whether all opinions were really equal, and where do we draw the line? I used flat earth as an example, because it is an extreme, and there is general agreement on the scientific evidence that the earth is actually round. The relevance to air transport policy is that if the earth was really flat, it would have implications for air routes, travel times, fuel usage, costs, etc. (including military strategy!)all of which would then have implications for air transport policy and implementation.

You ask: 'The question ought to be, who authorised you to begin with, to create air-transport policies for others!'

Well, I wasn't claiming to be creating air transport policy, nor would I ever be in such a scenario. I assume in the future, as now, there are knowledgeable people who would be responsible for that.

My flat earth example asked what would happen when the knowledgeable people were required by government policy to develop practical programs and strategies based on opinion that was demonstrably incorrect. If we can't even sort out, then we are in real trouble when it comes to issues like climate change where there is debate over the science. We then have to decide whether we use the precautionary principle and take action in case the worse predictions eventuate, or ignore the whole thing, and then kick ourselves in the future if the worse predictions were right. Yes, the worse predictions may be wrong; but we take out house insurance for the worse case scenario, even though for most people this never eventuates.

Note that nowhere in this or my previous post have I stated that I know it all. In fact I don't! That's why I am asking: how do we decide which opinions to follow in making policy.

Yuyutsu,

However, your response illustrates another problem: where people attribute opinions to others that they don't actually hold. I didn't say or imply that I wanted to set air-transport policy, yet you apparently assumed that's what I thought, and that I was being paternalistic about it. It had never occurred to me that my hypothetical question would be read that way! For the record, I have no opinions about or interest whatever in air transport policy!

We see this a lot: make a statement, and however neutral a person intends it, and someone will attack them as too left, too right, too paternalist etc. This is a real barrier to constructive discussion and compromise. By compromise I mean focusing on what we agree on, rather than obsessing about what we disagree on, with a view to developing win:win solutions.

I think there is far too much focus on computer models making long term forecasts way beyond their bounds of accuracy. Further, the parameters that the models are based on are not well understood. For example, there needs to be more understanding of the carbon cycle, especially the interaction of land and ocean. Over fifty percent of fossil fuel carbon emissions are absorbed by the natural world, yet there is little understanding of how this happens. The recent rainfall in eastern Australia may have in part been a result of the interaction of smoke and ocean, yet without any monitoring no one is any the wiser for the event.

Fester I think you would find if you looked closely, that the east coast rains are due to a little cyclone that wised down the western Oz coast, breaking up the positive Indian ocean dipole that had been blocking the moisture from the Indian ocean for over a year.

That & the El Nino blocking most moisture from the pacific is what had us so dry. As usual when these conditions collapse, they do so with a bang. Isn't it surprising that the weather bureau with all their records & super computers don't appear to know this.

Chris my forecast is that by 2050 the elites will have the majority of humans living like sardines, packed into little boxes stacked high in huge cities, scurrying around like rats in a trap, while they enjoy the wide open spaces denuded of the despised majority.

It is a real pity that there are so many useful idiots in the population, particularly in academia, the bureaucracy & media who want to help them achieve this objective.

It will be that, or if enough join the French yellow vests the Dutch tractor drivers, & the Brexit folk, the elites may experience something like the Chinese Cultural Revolution, & we may have taken our countries, planet & futures back.

For sure there has been the breakdown of the IOD and the southern migration of the monsoon trough, but to be fair on the BOM they were not oblivious to the prospect in the ENSO reports. MJO forecasts also suggested the prospect of some rain. Hard to predict things that aren't well understood. Harder still if you think it just a matter of computing power.

Smoke can fertilise oceans.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190729151853.htm

Dear Cossomby,

Sorry for causing this misunderstanding: my response was not directed at yourself, but at this hypothetical person who is convinced that the earth is round and based on this conviction is happy to impose certain air-travel policies on others who believe that the earth is flat.

«If we can't even sort out, then we are in real trouble when it comes to issues»

Only if you insist on creating policies for others who disagree.
Otherwise, just agree to disagree, then you may create your policies and they will create theirs.

«That's why I am asking: how do we decide which opinions to follow in making policy.»

This was my whole point: you do not need to decide, the problem rests with the insistence to decide for others.

Yuyutsu

i do not get your argument.

How does anyone form an opinion if they are not aware of the strengths and weaknesses of other opinions?

how does policy evolve without a discussion of diverse opinions?

How can a policy be formulated if it does not take account of a majority of opinions on many issues?

30 years from now? Well there's only one thing you can be sure of and that is that no matter what you think will happen will inevitably be wrong. As Yogi Berra said "It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future."

Think about 30 years ago - 1990. No cell phones - the first iPhone more that 15 years away. No social media. No Wikipedia. Effectively no internet. Windows 3.1 a few years away. Myriad wrong predictions from peak oil to ice free arctic to flooded Manhattan.

Who knows what's just around the corner. What new inventions, not considered now, will pop up to utterly change the world.

So having said that, these are my predictions for what they're worth.

The environment will be much the same as now but somewhat improved. Even though we have more people world wide, there is more food being grown per capita, on less land and using less inputs of fertiliser and water. Current developing nations will have developed to the point where they start to put more effort into improving the environment than increasing the GDP. Peking is no longer an environmental problem.

Forests in most of the world will be increasing and man's foot-print decreasing. Rivers will be cleaner. Most endangered species no longer endangered.

World population will still be increasing but at a decreasing rate and almost all the increase will be in Africa which will be the centre of environmental concerns. Although the point where the world's human population starts declining will be someways off yet, that horizon will be clearly visible.

Somewhere around 2040, battery technology reached a point where solar and wind were competitive with fossil fuels for energy production in many parts of the world. Oil/coal will remain the main fuel for transport and in the colder regions for energy production. Emissions will continue to rise but the great AGW scare will be long gone.

The world as a whole will b twice as rich as now and therefore much better able to afford mitigation measures from any adverse aspects of a climate changes.

Chris,

I think your attempt to encourage meaningful discourse on a serious topic is now being hijacked by The Forum's Class 1 loonies.

mhaze

Brilliant, except how do you factor in political corruption and its influence on positive decision making?

Dan

yes, the issue of corruption and poor status of many nations cannot be ignored, as seen by the latter's high rate of deforestation

Dear Chris Lewis,

Socialism and capitalism are not either/or propositions for most countries and for you to dismiss socialism as a function of decent economic and environmental outcomes is shortsighted.

Arguably the most hyper-capitalistic nations on the planet is the US. It has the highest percentage of its population being bars, some of the worse child mortality rates compared to its PP GDP and it willfully dismantling many of its environmental regulations.

Well I invite you to look at the nation of Costa Rica.

It spends roughly 6.9% of its budget on education, compared to a global average of 4.4%, Australia sits at 5.9.

It abolished its army in 1944 and directed the money toward education and health.

You have told us “I want to offer my opinion about policy possibilities and limitations with regard to the state of the global environment in 2050.”

Costa Rica has an impressive environmental record,

“It is the only country to meet all five UNDP criteria established to measure environmental sustainability. It was ranked 42nd in the world, and third in the Americas, in the 2016 Environmental Performance Index, and was twice ranked the best performing country in the New Economics Foundation's (NEF) Happy Planet Index, which measures environmental sustainability, and was identified by the NEF as the greenest country in the world in 2009. Costa Rica plans to become a carbon-neutral country by 2021. By 2016, 98.1% of its electricity was generated from green sources particularly hydro, solar, geothermal and biomass.”
Wikipedia

“Notably, after decades of deforestation, Costa Rica is one of the very few countries in the world that has more than doubled its forest cover during the past 30 years. Now, in 2019, half of the country's land surface is covered with trees, which are able to absorb a huge amount of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.”
http://www.horizontes.com/blog/costa-rica-doubles-its-forest-cover-and-leads-world-in-climate-emergency-fight

In 1994 it passed an amendment to its constitution which established the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.

Hopefully you will glean something from reading about the efforts of this inspiring country.

Chris,

Deforestation in the Third World (or redeveloping nations if you like that term) is one of China's biggest exports. China takes away their timber at little profit for the nation being exploited and leaves them with large scale environmental degradation.

FYI, costa rica is a liberal democracy.

"how do you factor in political corruption and its influence on positive decision making?"

I don't. Political corruption is just part of the system, worse in some systems, better in others. But its been around since the dreamtime and will be around when there are kick-backs to build the Restaurant at the End of the Universe.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Restaurant_at_the_End_of_the_Universe)

Eventually, the outcome will occur irrespective of the level of political involvement and/or the errors made by the political system.
Politics tried to kill the fracking revolution but failed. The digital revolution occurred quite outside the political realm and sometimes against the wishes of the power structure.

We know that reforestation occurs once a society reaches a given level of economic well-being although to date that's only occurred in liberal democracies. We'll await the outcome in China. Ask me again in 2040.

But let's not get too hooked up on forestry. Despite all the hype, the reforestation of the planet has already begun everywhere other than the least developed regions. As they develop the reforestation will only accelerate in the next 30 years.

It was the next 30 years we were talking about, n'est pas.

Dear Chris Lewis,

You wrote; “FYI, costa rica is a liberal democracy.”

Why are you telling me this? What gave you the idea that I didn't know it was?

The argument was that Western democracy and capitalism can not achieve a nation wide sustainable environment. I think this is fairly obvious, certainly not on their own. It has taken the contribution of socialistic values to allow Costa Rica to achieve what it has. These have been sourced from the strong social democratic values of its two main parties.

I'm not really wanting to debate muddied political definitions but the policies of Costa Rica are a far cry from those of the US and even Australia and are far more conducive to achieving large scale environmental sustainability. Devotion to market based solutions will never cut it.

Dear Chris,

«How does anyone form an opinion if they are not aware of the strengths and weaknesses of other opinions?»

There are many ways to form an opinion. Considering, possibly copying, the opinions of others is just one of them, not the only.
I for one, am quite capable of forming my own opinions without looking over my shoulder to see what others think.

«how does policy evolve without a discussion of diverse opinions?»

If by "policy" you mean a set of impositions on other people without their consent, then I rather that you make no policies.

If on the other hand, you want to create policies for yourself only, then all you need to look at are your own goals. As your goals change, so will your policies evolve. Then if you also want to create policies for certain others who asked for your help in making policies for them, then you should also ask for and consider their goals, then as their goals change, so will the policies evolve. Note that goals are not necessarily based on opinions.

«How can a policy be formulated if it does not take account of a majority of opinions on many issues?»

Majority of whom (I do assume that you meant a majority of people, not of opinions)? of an arbitrary group of people (and why just people, why not animals also?) who never even ever accepted yourself or each other as part of their lives, how less so agreed for you and the others to control their lives?

Besides, even in a democracy, assuming you believe in that concept, what counts are individual choices, not opinions - nobody is asked to provide reasons on their ballot paper (and even if they did, how could you tell that these reasons reflect their true opinion, if even they have any?)!
While choices are based on some thought or another, that thought need not be an opinion.

SteeleRedux,

I do not think that environmental sustainability is achievable.

I think it is a pipe dream given our world of unbridled global consumerism, increasing population growth, increasing environmental degradation and over-exploitation of resources.

A whole industry has developed around the idea of sustainability and a lot of people are making a lot of money out of delivering very little that is sustainable in the face of the adverse issues I mentioned above.

sorry, socialism is not part of my vocabulary. you will never see that word in anything I write. it is merely a word some people choose to use.

as for having an opinion, I still cannot see how you have one if you do not interact with the world around you, including listening to other people. you have to get ideas from somewhere.

I appreciate the thoughts offered on the environment by 2050 as some have given me food for thought

Dear Chris Lewis,

You wrote; "sorry, socialism is not part of my vocabulary. you will never see that word in anything I write. it is merely a word some people choose to use."

Too late, you just used it.

Not only that you have used it before.

"I do not believe that socialism can work to deliver the optimal society."
Posted by Chris Lewis, Wednesday, 26 February 2014 11:18:54 PM

Do the terms social democracy or social democrat offend you too? If you do then how do you make the distinctions between the political values of the political parties of Costa Rica and the US and how they impact on the environmental sustainability of each?

yes, but I never support the word. don't believe in socialism or social democracy.

liberal democracy all the way for me, albeit there are a range of obvious differences between them.

whether Aust or the US move to the left or not, they are still liberal democracies

here is an article on cost rica's liberal democracy

https://northcarolina.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.5149/9781469616193_Peeler/upso-9780807841532-chapter-3

Dear Chris,

«as for having an opinion, I still cannot see how you have one if you do not interact with the world around you, including listening to other people. you have to get ideas from somewhere.»

While in theory exceptions are possible (such as God opining "creating a new world would be nice", but we need not dwell on that), I generally agree with your statement.

However, even if you interact with the world around you, you do not need to interact with other people's opinions (and technically you cannot do so anyway because you can only listen to what they say, not to what they think). There is so much more to reality from which one can draw ideas, other than from second-hand opinions.

Had everyone based their opinions on other people's opinion (except Eve who based her opinion on the snake's words), then we just all end up with a long mental virus.

You may find the following interesting - how one can learn all kinds of ideas from nature (earth, air, sky, pigeon, etc.) rather than from copying other people's ideas: http://thesomathread.com/2016/09/11/the-24-teachers-of-dattatreya/

Dear Chris Lewis,

Come on mate, have you really studied this stuff?

You say you don't believe in social democracy.

This is Wikipedia's definition;

“Social democracy is a political, social and economic philosophy that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a capitalist-oriented economy.”

Why in the hell don't you believe in it? A philosophy which humanises capitalism and constrains its excesses yet you won't have a bar of it?

Of the political parties in the current Costa Rica parliament the National Liberation Party and the Citizens' Action Party which make up the majority and both have Social Democracy as a pivotal part of their ideology. Third on the list is the Broad Front which is listed as ideologically Green, Progressivism, Humanism, and 21st century socialism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Costa_Rica

This Social Democratic ideology has helped create a highly stable country with excellent health, education and environmental policies. Certainly a standout for its region if not the world. Why do you find such ideology problematic? Perhaps you need to brush up what you were taught at Monash.

Your link is paywalled but if you wanted to post some of it I'm happy to respond.

all good, if you want to use word socialism to describe a liberal democracy's behaviour, go for it.

Dear Chris Lewis,

Now you are being churlish.

Liberal democracy is a framework only, one that can certainly encompass a socialistic ideology. Some liberal democracies do not but many do.

For instance Costa Rica has kept 80% of its banking sector in public hands. The the third largest bank is wholly own by Costa Ricaian workers.

“Banco Popular was established in 1969 by the Costa Rican government to promote economic development. The bank emerged from a tradition of solidarity, and continues to reflect that today. Its mission is to serve the social and sustainable welfare of Costa Ricans.

BPDC is a distinctive, public-like cooperative bank that is worker-owned and controlled. Any worker holding a savings account for over a year has the right to share ownership in it. It combines commercial and developmental functions with clients that include workers, peasants, micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises, as well as communal, cooperative, and municipal development associations.”
http://theconversation.com/costa-ricas-banco-popular-shows-how-banks-can-be-democratic-green-and-financially-sustainable-82401

This country has obvious socialistic aspects to its culture and its politics. It is an exemplar in striving for environmental sustainability and have enshrined it in their constitution. Those socialist values are part of its success. For you to ignore them in any decent exploration of what the global environment will look like in 2050 would be doing the task a disservice.

From my point of view and following the experience of the last half century, the best policy that we can adopt to obtain a better environment both here and throughout the world is to get the government the hell outta the way.

Things are moving in the right direction as is and government intervention is almost guaranteed to make things worse or less good.

Let the market resolve the renewable issues. Let economic growth resolve the population issue. Let technological advancements allow us to do more with less in agriculture and manufacturing.

Chris, from

Jack Houghton

The world shuns old energy in pursuit of clean alternatives, a very toxic problem has been building in the background. During construction of solar panels the soft, silver, and highly ductile metal cadmium is compressed between sheets of glass – vital to how sunlight is converted into electricity so that environmental leaders like Zali Steggall can charge their hypothetical electric cars.

It is a process that many – consider to replacing coal.

The issue is cadmium is carcinogenic and considered roughly ten times more hazardous than the lead which sits next to it in a typical photovoltaic panel.

Panels which are shattered in storms break into fragments and the silver metal which once created energy is transformed into a dangerous health hazard.

Like the 16,000 destroyed by hurricane Irma in the Virgin Islands in 2017.
These panels last about two decades. After that becomes useless hunks of toxic waste which will collectively weigh 1500 kilotonnes by 2050 in Australia alone.

That figure is roughly 300 times what a nuclear power plant would have created to produce the same energy.

But surely those seeking to radically reform Australia’s energy grid through a Green New Deal must have considered this ecological crisis?

Well, no, according to authors of a study released last year titled “Drivers, barriers and enablers to end-of-life management of solar photovoltaic and battery energy storage systems: A systematic literature review”.

As the study provided a meta-analysis of 191 research papers into solar panel waste management. Its findings were damning.

“PV panel and BESS contain hazardous materials such as lead, lithium, tin and cadmium which can harm the environment and human health.

“Exposure to these technologies will cause various negative health effects.

“For example, cadmium is associated with its impact on lung, kidney and bone damages once absorbed into the body whilst exposure to lead will cause damages to nervous system.”

The authors even suggest that the technology should not really be classified as renewable because the issues with waste and the fact many rare minerals cannot be salvaged, and must be mined again.

Cont

The current linear take-make-consume-dispose economic system practised within PV systems will inevitably undermine renewable status of this technology without an effective end of life strategy,” they said.

Questions were also raised about the true CO2 impact of solar panels considering the role mining plays in their formation.

These issues don’t mean solar won’t form a crucial part of Australia’s energy grid.

What they do mean – however – is we must be far more reasoned and cautious before rapidly seeking to switch 81 per cent of our energy grid from fossil fuel sources to emerging technologies.

What is dramatically unhelpful is failed politicians such as Malcolm Turnbull using the tragedy of bushfires to attempt to speed up this process before adequate solutions are found.

“Have we now reached the point where at last our response to global warming will be driven by engineering and economics rather than ideology and idiocy,” he wrote in the Guardian last week.

“Our priority this decade should be our own green new deal in which we generate, as soon as possible, all of our electricity from zero emission sources.

“If we do, Australia will become a leader in the fight against global warming. And we can do it.”

This process should not be rushed and leaders in the Coalition must resist calls to do so – especially by those who wish to re-write history as environmental saviours.

There are quite incredible solutions to climate change being discussed in academic circles and according to all the science this writer has read – the climate catastrophe is still a long way away.

And there are far bigger fish to fry over in China before we should be despairing about our tiny geo-centric emissions tally.

Let’s pause and reflect before we poison the next generation with the very technology we hope will save it.

..use word socialism to describe a liberal democracy's behaviour,
Chris lewis,
What will it be called when they run out of other peoples' money ?

Dear Josephus,

Mate true to form you just gobble this crap up and regurgitate it here. Of course small amounts of cadmium are used in the manufacture of a particular variety of solar panels.

These solar panels make up less than 10% of all installed panels. The cadmium they use is a by product of zinc refinery. You know, the stuff used on your roof. This process produces tonnes of the stuff which is why it is so effective in bringing down the price of solar panels, because it is a waste product. There is so much produced that even if the demand from the solar sector was increased a thousand fold it would not put a dent in the available waste cadmium.

So do you want to ban zinc roofing now?

The same cadmium based technology is used in LED tv screens. They have far less of a usable life than solar panels which are set at 30 years.

Shall we ban LED tvs now too? Where is your angst about them? They are actually in people's homes rather than outside.

Certainly recycling efforts will need to evolve to cope with solar panels. This is already underway in Europe where owners are responsible for recycling theirs. In the US lack of regulation means this will take longer to establish. Hopefully Australia will take the European path and regulate their disposal.

interesting what they will do all old solar panels.

I heard a show on ABC radio a few weeks ago, and not much was being done.

it s a worry when we don't even cycle our on plastic yet.

Not just solar panels....windmill blades as well

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-05/wind-turbine-blades-can-t-be-recycled-so-they-re-piling-up-in-landfills

Solar and windmills do not work in the Artic zones during heavy snow falls. The only option there is gas or coal in remote areas.

Mr Bower says he didn't see any solar or wind in viet-nam first up. When you have places like Australia doing nothing to improve the environment, it's somewhat cheap having a go at an impoverished nation.
I think Mr ? is getting all the information he was expecting to get.

30 year solar panel would be conservative. mine have a warranty of 25 years which i have used 12 years of already.

Riely, I hold the Vietnamese in high esteem. They do not waste their money on silly fripperies like us. They are practical and adopt the smart solution not the politically correct option.
Solar and wind both need subsidies to build and subsidies to supply to make any sense. Coal however is reliable and cheaper and that is what they use. Like the Chinese and the Indians.
Same with travel, they have a good railway running North to South but the bulk of passengers use air travel for the same practical reasons.
No the Vietnamese are a lovely, practical and intelligent people and I am sorry we are unable to learn from them.

Mr bower the shot has already been fired. Your slimy attitude can not be retrieved by words. You meant what you said and now live with it.

Green energy facilities are all made of petroleum so, what is so green about them ?
Unless we are willing to go back to Stone Age ways of living, the notion of Zero emission is as idiotic as those who push it !

i dont think any sane person will ever suggest zero emissions.

What they suggest, as a national goal at least, is zero net emissions

Chris,

This is not going to happen. It's just too late. Decades of inaction have left us with a problem that is now just too big to fix.

We can always do what the AGW/CC denialists do: Tell everyone it's not our fault and stick our heads back into the sand.

i dont think any sane person will ever suggest zero emissions.
Chris Lewis,
I'd have thought it was pretty obvious that I didn't hint at sane people ! Unless you think of common sense derived pseudo Academics as sane.

Individual,

i did greenpeace carbon test, and scored 2.2 earths needed if everyone had a lifestyle like me.

https://act.greenpeace.org/page/33073/action/1?mode=DEMO&locale=en-ZA

I think to get to one earth, you would have to live like a hunter and gatherer.

well that will not be me. I do my bit as best as I can.

the above greenpeace link rated me as 'bad'.

I don't what else I can do. we have one car between us, I ride to work, I recycle, I have solar panels, I have a fruit garden, and I ride to work most days

Tackling the lie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHFfOOF-6Fs&feature=youtu.be&t=12&fbclid=IwAR1DUKLnRccfqRBudIfdT88MOgR4M60Nv_cfYj54KwNoGlgDiwpt898Sq9w

individual,

What do you mean by "pseudo Academics"?

This Russian scientist deals with the pseudo-academics. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHFfOOF-6Fs&feature=youtu.be&t=12&fbclid=IwAR1DUKLnRccfqRBudIfdT88MOgR4M60Nv_cfYj54KwNoGlgDiwpt898Sq9w

Josephus,

Easterbrook is an AGW denialist who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition supported by the majority of scientific or scholarly evidence that the burning of fossil fuels is heating the planet.

His bizarre claims contradicting AGW have been successfully refuted. He is the science equivalent of David Irving.

People like you, Hasbeen, mhaze, individual, Loudmouth, Bazz, and the usual suspects, all think that burning coal has a refrigeration effect. You believe that the heat given out by fossil fuels actually cools the planet. Hasbeen and mhaze have loads of data that prove this is what actually happens. You guys should hold your own group discussion that only AGW denialists can participate - because no one else would want to be part of it.

Your slogan can be "We're mad about AGW and we're getting madder!" Everybody will believe you.

If you don't want to discuss global warming with those who actually talk sense on the subject Mr O, you are quite welcome to go somewhere with your bile & stupidity.

Hasbeen,

The coronavirus might take care of us all.

Just keep bringing infected cashed-up Chinese into the country in order for people like you to get your pudgy hands on their money and we will soon see an outbreak in Australia.

Vietnam has quarantined a town near the Chinese border and Hong Kong and Singapore have just gone to critical alert so it won't be much longer getting to us especially if Soot 'Beam up me Scotty' Morrison lifts the travel ban at the end of next week.

Hasbeen,

PS It is a waste of time discussing global warming with you AGW/CC denialists because you are too deeply religious to accept scientific and scholarly evidence. You cannot accept anything that is not connected with God as the source of the phenomenon.

This is because you, like the other AGW/CC denialists, have a religious view of the world.

Unlike reiley I do mean all I say! I also tell the truth unlike the aforementioned. I suggest before you answer you take a bit of an attitude adjustment. Ever been outside of inner city cafe's mate? I would suggest more travel but now you can't fly what are you to do? Listen, learn and try and envision a world outside of the idiot box suburb you live in.

Chris are you really one of those who clutter up the roads we motorists have paid for with one of those dam bicycles?

Hasbeen

No, I ride on paths paid for by the taxpayer so that all Australians have the opportunity in their old age to do some walking/cycling to keep fit and reduce the health cost burden on the nation.

Chris Lewis,

What do you think of the way religious dogma espoused by the likes of Hasbeen is shaping the AGW/CC denialist perspective?

i try to never attack the man in personal terms.

Of human link with global warming, which i believe, i strongly diasgree with those who downplay the link.

nevertheless, as someone who likes to offer an opinion, i certainly take note of key points from all forms of sentiment.

That is the way i try to write politics.

this is the apporach evident in my phd if you are interested Mr Opinion

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1467-8500.2007.00515.x

sorry, this is the piece Mr Opinion

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1467-8500.2007.00516.x

Mr O, your self importance is irrational, you have just observed what is clearly obvious in my last post. A kindergarten child would find it obvious that his conclusions denied Global warming.

Josephus,

I won't argue with you. You have God on your side.

Mr O must be one of the least perceptive people ever to post here.

I am one of the least religious people on earth, but somewhere in his muddled mind he has found me to be religious.

God [like it], we get some dolls here.

Dear Hasbeen,

«I am one of the least religious people on earth»

Why do you have such a lowly opinion of yourself?

Aren't you a good person?

You do not need to belong to a church or to believe in any dogma in order to be religious.

Hasbeen,

Don't try to hide behind a veil of irreligiosity.

We can all see that it is not a rational scientific view of the world that drives your actions.

Your overt support of Soot 'Beam up me Scotty' Morrison and your conviction that things beyond human control are shaping the world give you away.

Dear Mr. Opinion,

Modesty is a virtue. To be driven by a scientific view of the world is not a rational approach because things beyond human control and beyond objective observation ARE shaping the world.

Yuyutsu,

You are saying that because you have a religious view of the world.

Dear Mr. Opinion,

«You are saying that because you have a religious view of the world.»

Correct. Others who lack a religious view of the world are unlikely to say it - yet it is still the truth whether or not it is proclaimed.

And lacking a religious view of the world does not necessarily mean that one is not religious. Some atheists are more religious than the pope.

Yuyutsu you don't have to be religious to believe that the planet is controlled by forces way beyond our control, & probably beyond our understanding.

This does not give any credence to the belief in some sentient supreme being that we should worship.

I believe people who "believe" in such a being aes simply week people, looking for a crutch to lean on.

It is impossible for Mr O to contribute to the discussion of science, as he is unskilled in Earth science or organic chemistry. He only knows how to abuse others as his study in sociology, the study of dealing with people, which he also has no practical social skills. He lacks comprehension in listening and debating science; he is highly skilled in abusing his opponents, and shouting his self importance. He has grown up lacking self assurance, and has himself been abused, so he assumes that is the way to treat others. He is a competitive insecure nerd!

Has been, I find that the people with the strongest minds are religious, they certainly not weak minded. They can stand alone from the crowd. Weak minded people just follow the crowd, just follow their leaders.

generalisations are too easy to make.

I have known strong and weak people that are religious.

people who are religious and lead by example rather than bashing their religious message, I always admire.

but I know too many a..holes who turned to god after dodgy lives, but remained a..holes.

I remember one d...head who would not talk to me again after his failed attempt to convert me to religion when I was homeless. he told me his own conversion was forced on him by his girlfriend. Now that is weak as p..s.

Most religious people aren't actually believers, they're simply too scared not to toe the line !

individual,

WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP

I suppose God is holding your arm up your back and threatening to hit you if you don't believe in him. Is this really the all-loving God that you think is causing global warming?

Dear Hasbeen,

«This [that the planet is controlled by forces way beyond our control, & probably beyond our understanding] does not give any credence to the belief in some sentient supreme being that we should worship.»

Correct. The credence for such beliefs rests not on logic, but on the ageless effectiveness of this practice.

While God is not a being (thus obviously not a "sentient supreme being"), BELIEVING that He is and worshiping Him as such, is a useful practical step that assists us in improving our character and purifying our mind as preparations to meet God.

«I believe people who "believe" in such a being aes simply week people, looking for a crutch to lean on.»

Very correct, but who does not need a crutch to lean on? How many people do you know who are not weak?

"The life of mortals is like grass, they flourish like a flower of the field; the wind blows over it and it is gone, and its place remembers it no more" [Psalms 103:15-16]

The Ice returns: http://electroverse.net/wave-after-wave-of-brutal-arctic-cold-set-to-engulf-north-america-over-the-next-10-days/?fbclid=IwAR3Iu3J9lPHzGTnOKnyP-lrYIa8jbJon7Nuw4AHg3