When Arnaud de Borchgrave and Robert Moss introduced the word “disinformation” to readers of their 1980 roman à clef spy novel “The Spike”—deriving the term from the Russian dezinformatsiya, the title of a KGB black propaganda department—it didn’t make a big splash in people’s personal lexicons, though It did make it into dictionaries starting in 1985. Disinformation, of course, has existed for millennia. Deception via disinformation has been the province of military leaders since there have been military leaders. Spies and double-agents, kings and corporations, scammers and other seducers disinformed not for casual amusement but to mislead and to militarily, economically, or politically cripple their target, be that an individual or a society of millions.
These days we’re practically marinated in disinformation, a daily deluge of fabrications and concoctions, delivered crudely or with nuanced sophistication, but lies either way. I can hear the chorus, “Meteor, are you talking about advertising?” No. Much of it certainly qualifies as disinformation, but it’s political not economic manipulation I’m talking about, though they are both accomplished from perches of marketing power. You can read hundreds of scientific papers exploring modern political disinformation from scores of angles. Here’s one.
Over the past four decades, in an example with seriously malign consequences, some rich and powerful agents of disinformation have brought us to the precipice on climate with ominous potential for our species and millions of others, all for profit. And now that the cruder denial elements of that scheme have collided with climate reality on the ground, there’s been a shift from outright denial to an aggressive fight against the transition to a greener, decarbonized future. Disinformation now rife will soon be made worse by robot propagandists, one of AI’s inconveniences.
Some of the lies are old, some new, but all are designed to delay the day when fossil fuels are actually left in the ground where scientists say they must remain if we’re to have any chance of keeping at least parts of the planet humanly habitable.
To help combat anti-green disinformation,Jacob Elkin, Matthew Eisenson and other researchers at the Climate Law blog of Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center have put together a helpful aid for when you’re arguing with somebody who’s been stuffed with what President Joe Biden might charitably call “malarkey.” It’s a data-rich report Rebutting 33 False Claims About Solar, Wind, and Electric Vehicles.
In a prefatory note the authors write:
Many of these false claims center on three categories of impacts commonly attributed to renewable energy development: impacts to the environment, impacts to human health, and impacts to the economy. For example, our report examines the common misconceptions that electric vehicles have a net harmful effect on climate change (they do not); that electromagnetic radiation from wind turbines poses a threat to human health (it does not); and that solar energy development negatively impacts U.S. jobs (it does not). Some of the misconceptions examined in the report, such as the notion that whale deaths stem from noise related to wind farm surveys, areentirely unsubstantiated. Others have some factual basis but are commonly repeated without necessary context: for instance, the notion that solar panels produce significant waste, without the context thatfossil fuel energy generates far more.
To identify the most common false claims regarding wind, solar, and electric vehicles, the authors of the Sabin Center’s new report first reviewed social-media groups and websites created to oppose renewable energy projects or policies, as well as existing coverage about misinformation. The authors then developed transparent, fact-based responses to these false claims, relying to the greatest extent possible on peer reviewed academic literature and government publications. The authors designed the report so that members of the public can cultivate balanced and informed opinions on frequently-contested topics related to renewable energy and electric vehicle deployment.
Facts. Not falsehoods. Now it’s no doubt true that many people cannot be persuaded by facts, whatever the subject. Anyone who believes vaccines, much less decarbonization, are tools of Lucifer will be hard cases. For them, it’s all about ideology and emotion.
But open-minded people have been swamped with the same disinformation as the rest of the country. And it takes its toll. The purpose, as we know, is to create FUD, fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Thus do even people who count themselves very much in favor of the green transition wind up wondering if maybe some items in the flood of disinformation has it right. Since the transition is having and will continue to have burps, hiccups, and farts as it unfolds, giving aid, comfort, and fodder to the disinformer brigade, the potential for buying into the lies will also continue. So then must updating reports like the Sabin Center’s. Here’s just one example from it:
False Claim #3: Solar panels generate too much waste and will overwhelm our landfills. “Solar panels pose a huge risk for overfilling the landfills.” The amount of waste that solar panels are expected to generate over the next few decades is trivial compared to theamount of waste that will be generated by fossil fuels. A study published in Nature Physics in October 2023 found that “35 years of cumulative PV module waste (2016-2050) is dwarfed by the waste generated by fossil fuel energy and othercommon waste streams.” Specifically, the study found that “if we do not decarbonize and transition to renewable energy sources, coal ash and oily sludge waste generated by fossil fuel energy would be 300-800 times and 2-5 times larger [in mass], respectively, than PV module waste.”
In addition, although only about 10% to 15% of solar panels are recycled in the United States, the U.S. Department of Energy has awarded funding under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act for additional research and development for solar technology recycling. A 2024 study on solar PV recycling concluded that “PV recycling will reduce waste, and CO2 emissions, while contributing to a sustainable environment,” and that “[i]t is expected that the research for efficient PV recycling strategies will accelerate as the PV industry grows and as many more organizations and government work towards a sustainable future.”
Already, some companies have been able to recover 90% of solar panels’ mass in their recycling processes.
Missing from this well-researched and helpful report are the bumpersticker versions of its fact-checks. And the Tik-Tok and Facebook versions. Succinct stuff with emotion as well as facts. We desperately need people tasked with that.
