One of the most glaring problems with so-called “Green Energy” is the double-standard applied to the industry.
One major example are the oft-cited situations where windmills can kill endangered birds without penalty, where if a hunter killed an endangered bird it brings major consequences.
A less well-known example that is still extremely glaring is the way used windmills and solar panels are just dumped in landfills because of how expensive recycling is.
These, among other things, underscore the hypocrisy of “Green Energy”, how “Green Energy” isn’t very green at all, and how “Green Energy” wouldn’t be viable if it weren’t treated with a double standard.
Thus, I think it is important that “Green Energy” be required to live up to its own standards.
Green Energy - especially windmills - should no longer be given exemptions for the penalties for killing endangered wildlife. If a windmill kills an endangered bird, the owners of the windmill should face the same consequences as anyone else killing the endangered bird.
With the disposal of used “Green Energy” waste, companies should be required to dispose of used “Green Energy” parts - such as windmill blades and solar panels - in the most green manner possible (For example, they must be recycled rather than dumped in a landfill if it is possible to do so, even if doing so is much more expensive).
It seems to me only right that “Green Energy” be held to the same standards as everyone else and live up to its own philosophy of “Going Green”.
EDIT:
Below is the current version of the effort to actually nail down this concept into a genuine, solid, actionable policy proposal.
Green Energy, such as and including Windmills and Solar Panels, shall no longer have criminal immunity. The same laws regarding environmental damage - such as the killing of endangered species - that apply to private citizens shall apply to those who own and are responsible for Green Energy.
It shall be established that it be mandatory that any form of ‘Green Energy’ or other ‘Environmentally Friendly’ infrastructure - including but not limited to windmills, solar panels, and electric vehicle batteries - must be recyclable.
The owners of ‘Green and Environmentally Friendly’ infrastructure shall be be required to dispose of such by recycling, they shall be prohibited from merely throwing it out.
It shall be required that ‘Green and Environmentally Friendly’ infrastructure shall be produced in a manner that is Environmentally Friendly. Such that requires that the environment be damaged - such as cutting down vast forests to build windmills and solar panels, or else massive land-ruining strip mines for lithium needed to build EV batteries - shall be prohibited.
Anything stated to be ‘Environmentally Friendly’ shall be required to clearly post its Carbon Footprint and Environmental Impact where it can be easily found and clearly read.
Mandatory Life and Longevity standards shall be established for ‘Green and Environmentally Friendly’ infrastructure.
Make so called “green” products cost as much as they do in reality - if they cause toxic or hazardous waste to make or dispose of then that cost should be added to the product when sold. For example all products with lithium ion batteries, lightbulbs that contain mercury, nuclear energy waste. If we can’t afford to clean up after it then we can’t afford to have it.
will support this if further work is done on it. I agree that there are significant scams in the green energy sector. I’ve been using solar panels for 10 years without any issues, yet I keep hearing about others’ panels failing and ending up in landfills. This doesn’t make sense to me, as they shouldn’t be getting hot enough to burn the wires.
About 10 years ago, I bought an expensive solar battery that didn’t even last a year. Since then, I’ve switched to using deep cycle marine batteries. When they start underperforming, I simply recharge them. It’s not difficult: you neutralize the battery acid with baking soda, then add Epsom salt and distilled water, and it’s like new again. Perhaps these high-end solar batteries should be designed to be as affordable and refurbishable as these simpler batteries.
I also believe that those promoting green energy and climate change, often using fear tactics, should be required to disclose their carbon footprints. For instance, Bill Gates has a yearly carbon footprint equivalent to 2.1 million hamburgers. His solution is to spend $9 million annually on eco-friendly jet fuel. This highlights the need for a major overhaul of the “green energy” narrative, which often feels like a scam or greenwashing at best. Environmental regulations are now being used to protect other countries’ interests in our own.
Most of it seems like a scam. For context, 2.1 million hamburgers would require a significant number of cows, which illustrates the scale of Gates’ carbon footprint. This is just basic math, and you can verify it yourself.
solar panels, including the small, inexpensive ones from China used in portable solar lights, should be built with a minimum lifespan of 10 years for panels ranging from 0.05 to 30 watts. No more gluing them onto cardboard. For panels over 50 watts, a minimum lifespan of 20 years is required, and they need to be durable and repairable. Solar panels should be weatherproof and easily repairable at home. If one of the small cells fails, you should be able to replace it with another cell easily.
Anything marketed as a solar battery should be fully recyclable at home without special equipment. A solar battery represents green energy and should last a lifetime. The Hubble Space Telescope, powered by a nickel-hydrogen battery recharged with solar panels, has been operational for over 30 years. There is no reason we shouldn’t have green batteries on Earth that can last just as long, especially when they can power satellites for decades.
Those who advocate for green energy and climate change initiatives need to disclose their carbon footprint. In fact, the carbon footprint of all goods should be labeled, allowing consumers to choose how much carbon they want to buy. Green energy wasn’t called green energy 30 years ago; it was known as alternative energy. It only became green energy when it was linked to climate change. We have a significant problem with greenwashing in this country, and taxes won’t make it greener.
While I think there’s room to adjust them, I can definitely see the value in requiring that solar panels (and other ‘green energy’ products) having certain standards that would ensure they actually provide a benefit that makes them worth the investment rather than being just a cheap and easy ‘look at me, I’m helping’ slacktivist write-off.
At absolute minimum, that they can be recycled should be mandatory, and it should probably be illegal to throw out such things rather than having them recycled.
I have to ask how you would realistically implement such a policy in a way that wouldn’t be implemented in an arbitrary fashion.
I don’t know about all goods, but I could see value in mandating that any product or service that claims to be ‘green’ being required to disclose such information (provided it can be done in a way that wouldn’t be implemented in an arbitrary fashion).
We have to break this green psychosis of vilifying C02 and get back to first principle thinking.
What offers the best cost per output?
What is the most renewable?
What is the most durable?
What has the least environmental damage?
At this point in time, I believe nuclear is that solution. I’d love to see fusion in my lifetime. Or to uncover Nikola Tesla’s research and see if infinite energy is truly much closer to reality than we’ve been led to believe.
I believe energy will naturally trend to the asymptote and that it will become so marginally cheap we consider it free.
Stopping the noise of the “green new scam” will do wonders for naturally weeding out these whale-killing, bird-murdering, ecologically damaging, energy production methods.
(Since this is benefiting from an auto-bump and not wanting to let it go to waste…)
Attempting to develop this from a mere ‘Observation’ into some form of ‘Detailed Policy’
Green Energy, such as and including Windmills and Solar Panels, shall no longer have criminal immunity. The same laws regarding environmental damage - such as the killing of endangered species - that apply to private citizens shall apply to those who own and are responsible for Green Energy.
It shall be established that it be mandatory that any form of ‘Green Energy’ or other ‘Environmentally Friendly’ infrastructure - including but not limited to windmills, solar panels, and electric vehicle batteries - must be recyclable.
The owners of ‘Green and Environmentally Friendly’ infrastructure shall be be required to dispose of such by recycling, they shall be prohibited from merely throwing it out.
It shall be required that ‘Green and Environmentally Friendly’ infrastructure shall be produced in a manner that is Environmentally Friendly. Such that requires that the environment be damaged - such as cutting down vast forests to build windmills and solar panels, or else massive land-ruining strip mines for lithium needed to build EV batteries - shall be prohibited.
Anything stated to be ‘Environmentally Friendly’ shall be required to clearly post its Carbon Footprint and Environmental Impact where it can be easily found and clearly read.
Mandatory Life and Longevity standards shall be established for ‘Green and Environmentally Friendly’ infrastructure.
Obviously, there’s still a lot of room to improve and refine here, but hopefully this is still progress into really developing this into a real, tangible policy.
@MKSJ , you are touching on 2 very important components of environmental economics: 1) external costs and 2) cradle to grave costs.
External costs in the windmill example include the killing of wildlife, noise, land use, rare earth minerals (in the magnets that allow wind turbines to make electricity, and copper, which is used for electricity transmission - see link below), and lack of a recycling requirement. To be fair, these considerations should be applied across the board, not just to “green energy”. We can’t truly do our best until we consider the full costs of any energy source or any product for that matter.
This is where the Trump administration can truly make a difference - by focusing on the total “footprint” and true costs of our decisions.
If anything, I see this as an effort to ensure that the considerations are indeed applied ‘across the board’; as stands Green Energy infamously does not have to play by the same rules as its non-Green equivalents.