Weekly Climate Recap: Mythbuster
Heads up notice: with summer around the corner and some serious race commitments, I may be reducing the frequency to biweekly going forward. This will give me the ability to juggle content creation and my training needed.
🤯 Solar/Wind/EV Mythbuster
A newly published piece from Columbia Law School, Sabin Center for Climate Change Law dives into 33 false claims about solar, wind, and electric vehicles. This is great reading for anyone you know who has some… interesting… views of sustainability and climate change. Truthfully, this report is needed with misinformation and disinformation campaigns by fossil fuel companies wreaking havoc on public acceptance of various clean energy transition aspects with an example given of:
“For example, support for offshore wind among New Jersey Republicans dropped from 69% to 28% from 2019 to August 2023, while support among New Jersey Democrats only dropped from 79% to 76%.”
There are 33 total examples of these false claims that are refuted and are split between:
- Solar: 1–14
- Wind: 15–29
- Electric Vehicles: 30–33
Given the breadth of questions that were responded to, I wanted to hone in on some of my favourites, i.e. the most ludicrous of claims that have to be refuted (surprisingly).
☀️ Solar
Claim: Toxic heavy metals, such as lead and cadmium, leach out from solar panels and pose a threat to human health.
Fact: About 40% of new solar panels in the US and 5% globally contain cadmium in the form of cadmium telluride, which has low toxicity compared to free cadmium and is non-soluble and non-volatile, reducing environmental risks during normal use. Solar panels, including those with small amounts of lead, are enclosed in materials that do not mix with water or air, minimizing the potential for chemical releases even in extreme conditions like fires or natural disasters, according to assessments by the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources. Even under severe circumstances like fires or floods, the concentrations of harmful elements in the air or water from solar panels are not expected to surpass regulatory limits, ensuring environmental safety.
Claim: We do not have sufficient mineral resources for large-scale solar development.
Fact: A 2023 study on emissions reduction scenarios found that global reserves of critical materials should be sufficient for future electricity generation infrastructure needs, with potential interruptions due to market forces or geopolitical events but no long-term constraints anticipated. The United States Department of the Interior supports this view, expecting no major hurdles in material availability for significant energy development from photovoltaic cells. Initiatives such as recycling solar panels and developing domestic sources of rare earth materials, along with legislative acts promoting infrastructure and resource development, aim to ensure a sustainable supply chain for critical materials in the energy transition.
💨 Wind
Claim: Offshore wind development is harmful to whales and other marine life.
Fact: Properly sited offshore wind farms can minimize harm to whales and marine life through measures like seasonal activity restrictions during migration periods and low operational noise levels. Specific agreements, such as those for the Vineyard Wind project, demonstrate how collaboration between developers and environmental groups can mitigate potential impacts, reducing the likelihood of vessel strikes or significant noise disturbances for marine mammals. In contrast, offshore oil and gas drilling presents ongoing risks to marine ecosystems, from acute harms like oil spills and sonar impacts to long-term issues such as ocean acidification due to fossil fuel emissions, all of which can detrimentally affect marine species like whales and their habitats.
Takeaway: Do not trust everything you read online, do your own independent research. But especially do not listen to right wing sources of media and their views on clean energy. There are so many myths out there regarding clean energy generation and clean technologies, this paper does a fantastic job of dissecting them.
🚗 Tesla Drama
It has been an absolutely wild few months at Tesla with news of all sorts swirling around the company. I was to dissect a few key items as of late:
📦 Q1 Deliveries
On the back of many negative headwinds including Chinese competition, competition in general, slowing EV demand growth, and a lineup of products that appears to be aged, Tesla deliveries plunged in Q1 2024.
Per Wedbush Securities’ Dan Ives on Tesla’s Q1:
“unmitigated disaster … that is hard to explain away.”
🗑️ Scrapping a Cheaper Model
Reuters has exclusively reported that Tesla cancelled an entry level inexpensive car that Tesla investors have been interested in as a driver for future growth.
While Elon Musk separately tweeted “Reuters is lying (again)” the Reuters report was enough to send shares of Tesla down by 6%, recovering to down by 3.6% upon Elon’s tweet.
While nothing seems concrete as of yet, it puts Tesla in an interesting position with regard to its product offering and strategic focus. Interestingly, some analysts report that Tesla is eyeing up the robotaxi strategy to combine AI and software advantages. In the face of stiff Chinese competition, Tesla may have decided that it is unable to compete on the low end of the EV price spectrum.
Takeaway: Tesla is a name synonymous with drama. These past few weeks show as much. With increased competition, leadership drama, and declining results, Tesla is a company to watch as one of the founders of the clean energy transition in the early days to an established incumbent entity as the industry evolves.
⚖️ Landmark Ruling
The highest human rights court in Europe sided with a group of 2,000 women from Switzerland over the age of 64 who sued their government on inaction on climate change.
The group that filed the lawsuit is called Association of Senior Women for Climate Protection Switzerland or Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz. The objective of the group was to demand the changing of Swiss climate policy as current targets are insufficient to limit global warming to a safe level. The rationale taken by the group is that as an association the legal proceedings do not depend on an individual person. Further, as a group of older women, they are particularly susceptible to intense and frequent heat waves.
Where the case goes from here is that Switzerland will now be obligated to update their policies around climate change but per Michael Burger at the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University:
“It doesn’t provide a specific injunction or any specific direction — it just says that you have to be more consistent with what the climate science says, but with deference to the policy prerogatives and democratic processes of the Swiss government.”
Takeaway: This represents yet another case brought before the courts in the realm of climate change litigation that proved successful. Similar to the case I covered in Montana some months ago here, it is fascinating to see the court litigate through these unprecedented times.
What Else is in the News
- Replacing conventional transmission lines with advanced conductors can quadruple U.S. transmission capacity by 2035 per a report from GridLab. This approach is cost-effective and unlocks access to clean energy sources. Policymakers are urged to incentivize the use of advanced conductors to accelerate grid decarbonization.
- The Biden-Harris Administration announced $20 billion in grants for clean energy and climate solutions across America. The grants will help fund projects to reduce pollution, create clean energy jobs, and benefit low-income communities. This initiative aims to mobilize private capital and advance environmental justice.
- India plans to significantly increase its nuclear power production to 100 GW by 2047, up from the current 8,000 MW. A vision document for this expansion is being prepared by the Department of Atomic Energy. The move aims to support energy transitions and reduce coal dependency in the coming decades.
