Acquaintances who are gullible enough to buy into the “anthropogenic climate change” narrative (despite its underlying fallacies about carbon-dioxide driving Terran temps, despite repeated revelations of data manipulation conducted to lend credibility to alarmist claims and demands for government clampdowns on our freedom) likely are gullible enough to believe that solar panels are a “cure-all” for this fictive “Carbon-Climate” problem and that, at its base, engaging in the “Carbon Footprint” calculus is really “climate-sensitive” in the first place.
Given those possibilities, this information probably won’t lead such Climate Cultists off the primrose path toward their “Green Utopia” – even as they crush logic, history, the scientific method, honesty, freedom, and the future of many poor people, beneath their Green-Fascist bootheels.
But getting the info to them might be worth a try.
Stacey Liberatore writes for the DailyMail.com that a new study actually takes into consideration the kinds of costs the free market has to handle -- but which many Climate Cultists don’t consider – and it reveals the long line of energy inputs needed to get the relatively low-level energy output of the most common large-scale photovoltaic panels.
Shocker -- as their lack of market popularity indicates, they’re not as energy efficient or economically efficient as Climate Fearmongers often purport:
“Solar panels release five times more carbon dioxide than previously thought, according to a new report.
An Italian researcher made the claims after finding a database that world institutions use to calculate global carbon footprint projections omits emissions from China, which produces 80 percent of solar panels worldwide.”
The core of the research focuses on the fact that the most commonly purchased solar panels are made in China, where production costs are lower than, say, the US, because the Chinese government allows producers to get CHEAP electric power via… coal plants.
In his report, researcher Enrico Mariutti noted the coal power source, as well as other factors that, in a free market, all are considered as part of the profit-loss-supply-chain calculation:
“If I use the standard variables for LCA [life cycle analysis] of PV energy, I arrive at a carbon intensity estimate similar to those of other studies: around 100 gCO2/kWh.
'However, those studies omit five crucial variables: methane emissions, albedo, grid upgrades, storage and transport. When included, the estimate drastically increases.”
Liberatore observes that Mr. Mariutti is not alone in his more realistic approach to the overall efficiency of solar panels:
“Robbie Andrew, a researcher at the Center for International Climate Research in Oslo, told the Wall Street Journal in 2021: 'If China didn't have access to coal, then solar power wouldn't be cheap now.
'Is it OK that we've had this huge bulge of carbon emissions from China because it allowed them to develop all these technologies really cheaply?'”
Which brings us back to the most fundamental question – who defines “OK?”
In a world where statists and nefarious globalist corporate-government busybodies usurp our freedom to choose what best benefits our lives and helps us raise our kids, in a world where they crush our ability and freedom to calculate costs and benefits, and in a world where they falsely claim that the simple use of efficient oil and natural gas are directly causing “harm” to others, THEY define what is “OK” or “Not-OK.”
That’s called tyranny, and, as this study reveals, even if one were to buy into their climate fearmongering and illegitimate targeting of carbon utilization, that tyranny is founded and promoted by massive international lies.
Efficiency is a quality of products and purchases, work output, and internal human valuation. Each of us has our own needs, and each of us shows those needs when we are free to make choices with our own money. Those choices reveal preferences regarding energy, quality, and all kinds of factors, and suppliers along the sales chains respond to those signals by seeing what we are willing to buy and for how much.
Central-planners cannot dictate those factors to us, and in a free market, we are free to disconnect from sellers who are disingenuous, deceitful, and destructive to our living standards.
The Climate Cult will not engage in real participation in the free market. Many of us who have reported on their multiple decades of lies have long been aware of the relative inefficiency of solar tech compared to so-called “fossil fuels.” We have been aware of the environmental corruption of "solar farms."
But we are pitted against enormous, tax-funded, tax-padded, adversaries who would prefer to hide the real costs of their “Climate Change Answers” than allow real people to decide if their “climate” arguments are valid, and if their so-called “solutions” to their unquestionable bogeyman are even solutions, based on their own slippery standards.
When the Mayor of Boston decrees that all future construction by the city must be free of “fossil fuel use,” we can see the sheer enormity of the problem.
And it’s a mental problem that involves both a lack of any realistic view of the market and scientific method. It’s a mental pathology that, at its core, is a moral problem. Because it’s about the Climate Cult desire to control others, regardless of truth.