Thank goodness that some of these projects coincidentally got funded via something that could be tied to environmentalism, or it would just be business as usual, and no one would care.
Now there's at least some small chance that the "see, green stuff kills you too" response may cause enough fuss for the US to do what most other developed nations would do as a matter of course in terms of protecting their citizens from pollution.
Why's that? Do you often see a trend of environmentalists championing releasing a bunch of toxic chemicals into the environment? Aren't they usually the group most strongly opposed to releasing harmful chemicals into the environment?
They're usually more about strongly opposing the appearance of releasing harmful chemicals. See Nuclear Energy NIMBYism, lithium/ cobalt mining, emissions and supply chain required to make solar panels, and wind turbine blade disposal. To call any of it "clean" energy is quite a stretch.
You're not far away from a very important point. There is no such thing as truly "clean" energy, and calling it "clean energy" does arguably take the focus away from the need to reduce energy consumption. Maybe it should've been called "less dirty" energy, like how we call rubber bullets and tasers "less lethal" rather than "non-lethal". And I share your concern that a sustainable solution to our energy needs can't come from unsustainable levels of cobalt and lithium consumption.
Where your argument falls down, however, is that you're making it sound like a choice between the toxic chemical pollution from "clean" energy and the greenhouse gas pollution from coal, gas and oil. It's not. Burning fossil fuels releases a huge amount of toxic chemicals as well. People are getting lung cancer and asthma from living in polluted cities. And the death toll from coal power is astronomical.
We need to get our greenhouse gas emissions under control, and we need to do it in a way which doesn't destroy other aspects of the environment. And any environmentalist will agree to that statement (even if some individuals are misguided as to how to get there).
>Where your argument falls down, however, is that you're making it sound like a choice between the toxic chemical pollution from "clean" energy and the greenhouse gas pollution from coal, gas and oil. It's not. Burning fossil fuels releases a huge amount of toxic chemicals as well. People are getting lung cancer and asthma from living in polluted cities. And the death toll from coal power is astronomical.
I don't look at them as separate. All these (non-nuclear) 'alternative' or 'green' or 'clean' energies do is adjust the proportions of fossil fuels at various points in the logistics chain to procure them. They don't really reduce its usage; at best they just concentrate it closer to the areas of direct procurement.
For example with electric cars, they simply move the consumption of 'dirty' energy to increase at coal plants and procuring the materials for manufacturing.
Something very rarely considered in the political dialogues surrounding energy is the logistics and security issues. Solar panels are essentially totally dependent on China for example. That issue should be solved before it is taken seriously as an alternative.
https://archive.is/6Mg5V
The only source of energy that reduces pollution the most dramatically with the most controllable costs to the environment is nuclear.
Now there's at least some small chance that the "see, green stuff kills you too" response may cause enough fuss for the US to do what most other developed nations would do as a matter of course in terms of protecting their citizens from pollution.