Fake News – EXPOSED!

Martin Wahl

Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law issued a 66-page report in April titled “Rebutting 33 False Claims About Solar, Wind, and Electric Vehicles” which does just that in exhaustive, documented detail. We are going to look at these claims and rebuttals over the next few issues of Green Energy Times, along with guidelines for how to identify false or misleading statements regarding climate change, or for that matter, any topic.

Why this is important.

Disinformation and falsehoods have affected public opinion negatively on a variety of topics, from health issues to climate change. Whether through inuendo and cherry-picked data, laughable misstatements, or classic logical fallacies, the cumulative effect over the past few years is reflected in the decline of support for wind and solar energy specifically, as well as skepticism about the benefits of electric vehicles.

Helping Americans identify reliable, factually correct information for supporting policy as well as personal decision-making is important to ensure a thriving democracy.

So, what did they find out?

We will start with “Solar Energy Myths.” The article identifies 14 myths that require debunking. Here are a few of the key ones:

• Solar farm electromagnetic fields (EMF) are harmful to human health. The study points out that the EMF around a large inverter at a solar farm is less than that around an electric can opener. In any event, EMF is non-ionizing radiation, so does not affect molecular structure as powerful radio waves can; so, the people concerned about EMFs should, of course, be concerned about using cell phones.
• Toxic metals like cadmium leach out of solar panels and are a health threat.
  • The cadmium in the panels is in the form of cadmium telluride and, like all materials in them, is non-volatile and non-soluble; tests show that concentrations of heavy metals near solar sites were indistinguishable from those from farther away, and low levels of selenium identified were likely from concrete used during installation.
  • The study notes that coal-fired power plant-produced fly ash DOES contain high levels of lead, cadmium, and selenium.
• Solar panel-generated waste will overfill landfills.
  • Solar panels do generate waste: the high estimate is that up to 160 million tons may be generated from 2016 to 2050. While plastic waste will generate 12.4 billion tons and coal ash 45.5 billion over the same period.
  • The authors point out that between 10% and 15% of decommissioned solar panels are recycled in the U.S., and the Department of Energy has awarded funds from the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law for researching ways to improve solar equipment recycling.
  • As Michael Daley reported in this April’s G.E.T., We Recycle Solar in Yuma, Arizona has already recycled more than half a million panels, diverting 23 million pounds of waste from landfills.
• You can look up responses to these other solar myths at https://bit.ly/RebuttingFalseREClaims:
  • Clearing forest for solar panel installations negates any climate benefit and solar projects harm biodiversity
  • Solar energy is worse for the climate than burning fossil fuels
  • Solar projects hurt US farmers and destroy US jobs
  • Solar makes us more dependent on China and other countries
  • Solar farms negatively impact nearby home prices
  • Solar is more expensive than fossil fuels and depends entirely on subsidies
  • Solar doesn’t work in cloudy climates and requires 100% fossil fuel backup
  • The US does not have sufficient resources required for large-scale solar development

So, how can you tell if it is fake news?

Look for fake story warning signs and check out a few things:

Fake Story Warning Signs

If it sounds ridiculous, it probably is.

Candidate Ronald Reagan pulled a classic, declaring: “Trees cause more air pollution than automobiles.” While true that trees emit volatile organic compounds like isoprene which interacts with NOx to produce ground level ozone, most NOx, of course, is generated by burning fossil fuels.

Lots of random, unrelated references with contrary conclusions

If a quote from an apparently reliable source looks counter indicated (e.g.: a scientific climate article reporting a decrease in global temperature) it’s an indication that information may have been taken out of context. See “Check for Cherry Picking”, below.