Resist the ‘Climate Change’ Power Grab
The World Economic Forum insect overlords have convened in Davos, Switzerland for their annual confab this week, and once again, their focus is “crisis.”
Everything is a “crisis” for the WEF and their minions seeded throughout the world’s governments and corporate leaders, and those crises are always “unprecedented.” But this year, they’re trying to foment even more global panic; they’ve declared 2023 to be the “year of the ‘polycrisis.’” In other words, multiple crises at the same time. (Which is the same thing they’ve been saying for years, but with a new, scary epithet attached to it.)
Also consistent with their previous messaging is that those in power need much “more” to accomplish their goals. More power, more government and corporate control, and much more money. Former Secretary of State John Kerry gave a speech in Davos on Tuesday in which he warned that “saving the planet” will take “money, money, money, money, money, money, money, money, money.”
Where is all this money going to come from? Why, from you, of course -- the average citizen -- from whom everything will be taken; not only your money but your car, your single-family home and yard, your food and your freedom. But it’s fine, because we’ll have utopia when the central planners are finished.
Everything about this reeks of fraud, deceit, massive miscalculation and manipulation. And we’ve seen this movie enough times before to be suspicious of everything we’re being told.
First, the science is questionable. A basic tenet of the scientific method is that if your predictions don’t happen, your hypotheses are flawed. The climate catastrophe Cassandras have been wrong for decades. In the 1960s, professor Paul Ehrlich, author of “The Population Bomb,” predicted widespread starvation for most of humanity. Didn’t happen. In the 1970s, the “experts” were predicting a new “ice age.” Didn’t happen. “Global cooling” became “global warming” and Al Gore, one of its most famous prophets, relied on computer models to predict that arctic ice would be melted by 2013. Didn’t happen.
Second, science doesn’t become “settled” just because scholars who challenge prevailing theories are silenced. Professor Michael Mann, another renowned expert in climate science, authored the “hockey stick” graph in 1998 that purported to show a huge spike in global temperatures attributable to increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. But when other scholars pointed out gaps in Mann’s data (he ignored the Medieval Warm Period and the so-called Little Ice Age) and flaws in his methods, Mann attacked them and the journals that published their critiques.
Third, politicized science is both suspect and dangerous. In 2019, Dr. Paul Offit published “Pandora’s Lab,” a hard-hitting account of seven instances of “science” that shaped disastrous shaped public policies, including eugenics, the war against pesticides, the use of lobotomies to treat mental illness, and the aggressive promotion of trans fats instead of natural dairy products. Just two weeks ago, Joanne Silberner wrote a powerful article for Bari Weiss’ new online magazine The Free Press, in which she lays out how the same phenomena Offit exposed have impeded real progress on the search for a cure for Alzheimer’s.
Offit’s book and Silberner’s essay expose two ugly realities: When politicians build their campaigns on sketchy or unproven scientific theories, they have a vested interest in making sure that facts that disprove those theories never see the light of day. And scientists -- whose research money the government controls -- then have a vested interest in making those politicians happy.
Truth may be the first casualty of war, but it is a later casualty of government research as well.
Fourth, rampant hypocrisy gives a glimpse into the dystopic future these megalomaniacs are planning. The seas are supposedly rising, but they own beachfront properties. You shouldn’t be driving a car, but they fly everywhere -- including into Davos -- on private jets. Your modest family home is a problem, but they own multiple mansions that sit empty most of the time.
The deceit and propaganda campaigns surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic followed this same template. There were hysterical predictions about lethality based upon inadequate information. Our government lied about its role in the development and funding of the virus, and government policies were clearly designed to maintain -- and exploit -- public ignorance. Scholars, scientists, physicians and other medical experts who pointed to the facts suggesting a lab leak; who argued in favor of inexpensive and readily available drugs to treat symptoms of the virus; who questioned the safety of experimental viruses and called attention to grave side effects and deaths likely caused by the “vaccines” were called kooks and conspiracy theorists. We now know that the government worked with social media to silence these brave people and keep the truth from the public. And while the rest of us were locked down, powerful politicians got special trips to the hair salon, enjoyed maskless parties, dinners at expensive restaurants and vacation trips.
The WEF want total power to address “crises.” We must remember that throughout history, the worst crises faced by humanity -- wars, famines, plagues, starvation, slavery, death on a widespread scale -- were either caused by those in power or exacerbated by them. Those horrific results need not be motivated by malevolence; mere error can do as much damage. Tens of millions of Chinese people died in the famine that was caused by the policies in Chairman Mao’s “Great Leap Forward.”
Once the central planners are in complete control, you’re just as dead if they’re accidentally wrong as you would be if they intended it.
Politicized science coupled with propaganda is a recipe for disaster. In the hands of those who seek global power in the name of “climate change,” it is a prescription for an actual catastrophe of unprecedented proportions.
Keep power and control out of the hands of the WEF (and everyone who thinks like them) now, or live to regret it later.
https://townhall.com/columnists/laurahollis/2023/01/20/resist-the-climate-change-power-grab-n2618519
***************************************************The hysteria and doom-mongering that now surround any debate about climate change risk doing more harm than climate change ever could
By ROSS CLARK
Fear is very easy to spread. Make a television documentary in which footage of extreme weather events is overlain with vague statements about climate change, and you sow the idea in viewers’ minds that we are headed for a hellish future.
There can never have been a time when some part of the world was not in a heatwave, another part was not flooded, another suffering unusually high temperatures and another unusually low temperatures.
Yet if you report on every extreme event and throw in the term ‘climate change’, you will very rapidly plant the idea that the world is in some freakish transformation.
Even when it demonstrably isn’t. A Pentagon report that came to light in 2004 claimed that by 2007 large parts of the Netherlands would be rendered uninhabitable by flooding and that by 2020 Britain would have a ‘Siberian climate’ as the system of atmospheric circulation broke down.
In his 2006 climate change film An Inconvenient Truth, former U.S. vice-president Al Gore asserted that the snows on Mount Kilimanjaro would be gone ‘within the decade’. While there has been some continued erosion in the mountain’s glaciers, they are very much still in existence.
Certainly, there is ample evidence that the Earth is warming, and there are potentially many negative consequences from that. Yet hyperbole now rules so much coverage of climate change. Changes which are benign are regularly hyped up into something ominous.
On July 19 last year, Britain experienced its highest-ever recorded temperature: 40.3c (104.5f) at Coningsby, Lincolnshire. This was the fourth time Britain’s maximum temperature record had been broken since 1990 and is consistent with a warming climate.
Yet did that justify the reporting which framed it as an ‘apocalypse’ with predictions of 10,000 excess deaths from that summer’s heatwave? In the event, excess deaths came to less than a third of that. Moreover, the middle of 2022 witnessed a large unexplained number of excess deaths beginning in March, long before the heatwave.
Let us accept, though, that heatwaves are a danger to health and that climate change is making them more common and more intense. Yet the increased risk must be balanced against a fall in deaths from the cold — which is a much bigger killer in Britain’s climate.
Official figures from the ONS (Office for National Statistics) show that over the first 20 years of this century, the upward trend in temperatures in England and Wales resulted in just over half a million — 555,103 to be precise — fewer temperature-related deaths. The headlines ought to read ‘Climate change saves half a million lives’, yet this real-word data seemed to tease out some rare scepticism from news outlets more used to presenting doom-laden forecasts and scenarios as established fact.
BBC climate editor Justin Rowlatt began his analysis of the study with the words ‘statistics can be slippery’. In effect, he was saying, I’m choosing not to believe this particular set of data.
But there were no such doubts in the media when, at around the same time, the Government estimated that climate change was going to cost the UK economy up to £20 billion a year by 2050 — even though there is no way of knowing what kind of weather or economy we will have in 30 years’ time.
Rarely is it admitted that there might even be some benefits from a warming climate. The Government’s own climate change risk assessment did identify some of these, such as the ability to grow a richer variety of crops in Britain, but this tended to go missing from the reporting.
Moreover, some of the dangers identified made you wonder: are we really so helpless as to be unable to cope? It cited ‘risks to human health, wellbeing and productivity from increased exposure to heat in homes and other buildings’. Yet people already live and work quite happily in climates far hotter than Britain will experience even in the most dramatic scenarios of climate change.
They manage to do this thanks to properly designed buildings, insulated from heat as well as cold, aided by proper ventilation and air-conditioning.
The trouble is that in Britain we have been putting up poorly engineered new buildings which are designed to cut carbon emissions to the exclusion of all other considerations, such as the comfort of their occupants.
They are stuffed with insulation and sealed against draughts — yet have inadequate ventilation and insufficient means to disperse heat from the sun and other sources. Occupants of new homes are wilting not because of climate change but, perversely, because of building standards designed to avert climate change. Yet nuances such as this are lost as we are fed a diet of ever-greater climatic doom.
There seem to be very simple rules behind the narrative being spun to the public. First, that climate change offers nothing positive, only harm. Second, that the only way to tackle that harm is to end climate change. The idea of adapting to it is considered sacrilege.
We end up not with managed changes to the climate that might improve the situation but cataclysms beyond human ingenuity. And apparently also beyond the ability of the natural world to cope.
Climate change is apparently going to kill off plants which rely on birds to spread their seeds. It is going to kill off insects — except for mosquitoes and locusts, whose numbers are going to explode
Some of what passes for warnings on climate is sheer flight of fancy. In January last year a study funded by the Met Office and written by academics at Exeter and Edinburgh universities presented five scenarios as to what might happen by the year 2100, depending on what actions are taken now.
One of them, in which the Government carried on exploiting fossil fuel, bizarrely had Britain descending into hunter-gathering and feudal warfare. Another, where green policies were adopted, resulted in the eradication of poverty by the end of the century.
This is not climate science, nor science of any kind; it is science fiction, dreamed up to serve a particular political outlook.
None of this is to say that climate change is not happening and is not a problem. The world is warming and there are many reasons why we should want to cut carbon emissions and adopt cleaner forms of energy.
But we are not having a reasoned debate as to the choices and balances which that entails. Instead, we are presented with hysteria, with terms such as ‘heat apocalypse’ being thrown about. That belongs to the movies, not real life.
Worryingly, there is now a growing divide between the statements of climate campaigners who claim to have science on their side and what scientific data actually says. At the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow in 2021, everyone was banging on about ‘the science’, a supposed set of truths which could not be challenged. But it was noticeable how few actual climate scientists were there delivering lectures.
Certainly not the ones who compiled the report of the IPCC (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) published three months earlier, which pointed to some interesting and some conflicting changes in the climate but hardly to doomsday.
Its worst-case scenario — a global temperature rise of 4c, wind speeds in the strongest tropical storms up 5 per cent and rainfall from tropical storms up 12 per cent, as well as sea level rises of a metre by 2100 — would present serious challenges in many places. But even that would hardly amount to a ‘cataclysm’ for human civilisation.
We have lived through many ice ages, with rapid warming and cooling of the climate occurring over a few decades. Surely, an advanced industrial civilisation can find ways to cope with all these changes.
Yet climate change is a world that has come to be controlled by activists and campaigners who claim to be on the side of science and reason but who are really spinning narratives which suit ulterior motives.
And they get away with it because sceptical views have been all but banned from many newspapers and news channels.
In 2018 BBC news staff were asked to go on a one-hour course on reporting climate change, in which it was made clear that interviewees who were sceptical about man-made climate change were no longer regularly to be invited on to BBC news programmes. It went further: sceptics were now branded as ‘deniers’ — an emotive term coined by climate activists to try to compare their opponents to Holocaust deniers.
‘To achieve impartiality,’ BBC news staff were told, ‘you do not need to include outright deniers of climate change in BBC coverage, in the same way as you would not have someone denying that Manchester United won 2–0 last Saturday. The referee has spoken.’ In practice it isn’t just ‘outright deniers of climate change’ who have disappeared from the BBC. I struggle to recall a single case where a dissenting opinion has been expressed on the subject over the past five years.
Yet there appears to be no parallel ban on the views of people who exaggerate the findings of the IPCC or other scientific sources. On the contrary, such people have continued to appear on the BBC, their assertions unchallenged.
In September 2021, for example, an activist with Insulate Britain, which was then causing havoc by blocking motorways, claimed on the Today programme that climate change would lead to ‘the loss of all that we cherish, our society, our way of life and law and order’, that the economy was ‘in serious danger of collapse’ and that climate change was ‘endangering billions of people’s lives’.
On none of these claims was she challenged.
There is a drive on the part of some activists to go further than simply banish sceptical opinion from the airwaves. Trygve Lavik, a philosopher at the University of Bergen, has suggested that climate change ‘denialism’ be made illegal on the grounds that it is a ‘crime against present and future generations’.
This tougher tone in the media is partly down to an organisation called Covering Climate Now, an initiative by the Guardian and other outlets with Left-liberal leanings, to which some very high-profile news organisations, such as Bloomberg, Reuters, the Daily Mirror and Newsweek, have signed up.
It offers support to journalists to ‘forge a path towards an all-newsroom approach to climate reporting’. Its guidance includes: ‘Remember, an extreme weather story that doesn’t mention climate change is incomplete and potentially even inaccurate.’
For example, when reporting a hurricane, they were urged to add that ‘this comes at a time when human-caused climate change is consistently making storms more intense’.
Storms more intense? This is not the conclusion that would be reached by a reporter who bothered to do their own digging and came across a report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which has done more research into this than anyone. It affirms that ‘there is no strong evidence of century- scale increasing trends in major hurricanes’.
As for the IPCC, it found that Australia is currently experiencing the lowest frequency of tropical cyclones in the past 550 to 1,500 years, while the northern Indian Ocean is seeing an increased intensity of the most severe storms but a decrease in frequency. The data tells us that, no, rising global temperatures have not unleashed lethal hurricanes and other storms which otherwise wouldn’t have occurred, and in some parts of the world there is even a downward trend in storm activity.
Yet that is not the picture that viewers, listeners and readers will have picked up from reports of extreme weather events.
Rather, they are urged to believe that the world is already in the grip of mad winds whipped up as a result of human influence on the climate, that when anyone dies or is made homeless in a hurricane they are victims of man-made climate change and that things are only going to get worse unless we take drastic action now.
Were the public to be fed a calmer, more even-handed reporting of the data, we might have a more rational debate over net zero.
So what is really going on with the climate? What, exactly, is at stake when people assert that climate change is so dire a threat that we have no option other than to eliminate all net greenhouse emissions by 2050?
The evidence from the IPCC shows that the Earth is warming, leading to a rise in extreme high temperatures and a fall in the number of extreme low temperatures over most of the globe.
The world is also seeing higher and heavier rainfall, although this is not translating into greater flood risk in most cases. A study of more than 2,000 rivers over half a century, quoted in the most recent IPCC report, found that in only seven per cent of them was there an increasing trend in maximum annual flood levels.
Storm tracks in some parts of the world have shifted, leading to a rise in storms at high latitudes and a fall elsewhere. There is no increase in tropical storms, although they may be dumping more rainfall in some places.
Some places are suffering more drought, others are seeing less dry conditions. Fire risk has increased in some places but this has not translated into an overall increase in land affected by wildfires.
Data specifically on the UK confirms an upward trend in temperature and rainfall, more heatwaves but also fewer cold spells. There is some evidence of more intense rainfall.
But none of this adds up to the idea that Britain is suffering extreme or ‘violent’ weather, ‘climate breakdown’ or any other of the hysterical claims which are being made every time the country suffers weather-related damage.
If the present trends in temperature and rainfall are maintained throughout this century, Britain will end up with the kind of climate which is already experienced in slightly more southerly latitudes. A further rise of 1.5c in average July temperatures in London, for example, would take us to the current levels experienced in Paris.
But of all the challenges presented by climate change, the most serious for Britain is rising sea levels. Many of the country’s most populated areas are in low-lying coastal locations. London sits at the end of a funnelling estuary vulnerable to tidal surges.
Yet climate change is not the whole story here. Britain sits on a tectonic plate. The South-East of England is sinking — and has been doing so since the last Ice Age. Up to half the change in sea level in the Thames estuary is down to the land sinking rather than the sea rising.
The answer to flooding is better defences. Even in the worst-case scenarios, for the next century at least, we will be able to continue to live where we do now by adopting the drainage and flood defence policies of the Netherlands.
There, a quarter of the land surface already lies below sea level and the lowest point is a full 6.7 metres below sea level. Yet flooding is rare because sea defences are strong and drainage well managed.
None of this is to say that we should not reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It is very much in our interests to burn less fossil fuel, and to decrease greenhouse gas emissions more generally, even to try to eliminate them eventually.
But the fact is that we are not being fried, frozen, drowned, burned or blown away by human-induced climate change.
That is hyperbole, which is being used to suppress debate over net zero and forcing us into making some very poor decisions.
We need to stop panicking. At the moment we are responding to modelled, worst-case scenarios and to assertions of climatic doom which have no scientific basis, only an emotional one.
****************************************************
First, Biden came for your gas stove. Next, Democrats will come for your gas heater
The commissioner of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), Richard Trumka Jr., recently said his agency is considering banning gas stoves because they can cause asthma in children, among other health and respiratory maladies.
Trumka called gas stoves "a hidden hazard," and further said, "Any option is on the table. "Products that can’t be made safe can be banned," he added.
However, after just a few days of intense backlash from Republicans and conservative media, the Biden administration appeared to suddenly reverse course. On Wednesday, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said that Biden "does not support banning gas stoves."
It’s good news that the Biden administration appears to have caved on its reckless gas-stove proposal, but not every Democrat is as easily persuaded.
Gas-powered stoves or other appliances and heaters powered by natural gas have been banned in new constructions in nearly 100 cities and counties, including in New York City and San Francisco.
Further, lawmakers in at least 20 states have also proposed similar prohibitions. In 2022, Washington State lawmakers banned natural gas appliances in new buildings in 2023.
New York governor Kath Hochul, a Democrat, recently offered a sweeping proposal to ban both natural gas heaters and all appliances, including stoves, in new buildings in the state. If the proposal is passed into law, the ban on natural-gas-powered appliances would begin its phase-in period in 2025. And starting in 2030, new natural-gas heating systems would also be prohibited.
Unlike with the White House’s recent plan, there’s no sign that most other Democratic proposals will be reversed anytime soon.
Supporters of banning the use of natural-gas-powered appliances often claim it can cause health hazards like childhood asthma, an important assertion because tens of millions of homes rely on natural gas today. More than 40 million Americans use gas stoves, and the US Energy Information Administration reports, "About half of the homes in the United States use natural gas for space heating and water heating."
But do appliances like gas stoves actually present an increased risk of asthma for children or pose other health dangers? In short, the answer is no, so long as proper ventilation is present.
And even when it isn’t, experts are divided and the evidence is mixed when it comes to certain correlations between the use of gas-powered appliances and health problems.
Despite getting a lot of attention, the study cited by the CPSC is a weak meta-analysis of previous studies. The researchers didn’t analyze all of the available research. They cherry-picked data from studies that fit their predetermined conclusion while ignoring other data from studies that did not reiterate their preferred assumptions.
Previous reviews of the available research have found, "It’s not clear whether gas stoves are a significant likely cause of health problems, because households have many other potential sources of indoor pollution too." But even if gas stoves and other gas-powered appliances and heating systems do contribute to the development of childhood asthma or other health issues, there is no reason to ban them.
The study cited by CPSC claims just "12.7% … of current childhood asthma in the US is attributable to gas stove use," about 762,000 children. The alleged reason for the association is that cooking over natural gas in poorly ventilated kitchens releases respiratory irritants into the air, some of which have been associated with causing asthma.
If this is true — and again, some researchers claim it isn’t — why not fix the alleged problem by improving ventilation? That would not only alleviate fears over childhood asthma and other health problems, it would do so without government bans and restrictions on the free market.
Even those who are concerned about the use of gas-powered appliances acknowledge this is a reasonable approach. For example, the Massachusetts Medical Society, which has published articles claiming that natural gas stoves are connected to pediatric asthma, has also said "simple actions" like "Using exhaust fans that ventilate to the outdoors when cooking with a gas stove" and "Using HEPA air purifiers with carbon filters" would avert the potential health risks associated with natural gas cooking.
So, instead of banning gas stoves and other gas-powered appliances and heating systems, as many Democrats are now suggesting, policymakers should consider changing building standards so that new constructions use better ventilation.
In general, gas stoves and gas-powered heaters are arguably safer and perform better than electric alternatives. For example, gas stoves ignite quickly and heat food faster than electric stoves. And once the burner is shut off, the risk of unintended burn is minimal. Additionally, gas stoves typically work during a power outage, unlike electric stoves, and they are more durable and last longer than their electric counterparts.
It seems obvious that a ban on gas-powered appliances and heating systems is unnecessary. What is the real reason, then, for why Democrats across America are suddenly so interested in banning them?
It could be that Democrats, who have long suggested natural gas is contributing to a dire climate crisis, have chosen to invent new justifications for destroying the natural gas industry. Most American voters don’t view climate change as a top priority, but perhaps Democrats think a good old-fashioned health scare will do the trick.
Whatever the real reasons are behind the sudden urgency to eliminate gas-powered appliances and heating systems, one thing is abundantly clear: there is no good justification for government to take away Americans’ ability to use natural gas, an extremely efficient, reliable, safe source of energy. It doesn’t pose significant health hazards, as some of falsely claimed, and whatever risks do exist can easily be reduced using simple, affordable, common-sense reforms.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/first-biden-came-gas-stove-next-democrats-come-gas-heater
************************************************Solar panels are leading an energy revolution, but recycling them isn't easy
Almost every day, Anthony Vippond's solar recycling plant in Melbourne's north receives dozens of used solar panels.
In the car park, multiple tilting towers of the devices, held together by tie-downs, take up the spaces.
Right now, a lot of them come from schools as the state government upgrades or replaces about 500 solar panel systems.
Others come from businesses, homes or solar farms from rural Victoria.
Some have large holes shot through the middle, others are smashed, but most have no damage at all and have been cast aside because they are not as efficient as they once were.
All those used panels have to go somewhere, and it cannot be landfill; Victoria, South Australia and the ACT have banned solar panels ending up in landfill — they have to be taken to e-waste drop off points to be recycled.
It was a move made to stop heavy metals in the panels from leaching into the earth, and — with roughly 26,000 tonnes of solar panels predicted to be thrown away every year in Victoria from 2035 — to force industry to innovate.
But recycling solar panels is not straightforward. "They are laminate, they're stuck together, they're glued," Mr Polhill says.
To be reused, solar panels need to be broken down so each component — including glass, aluminium, copper, plastic and silicon — can be separated. And that takes a lot of heavy machinery to achieve.
Some of those materials can then be sold and used in new products.
Various companies in Victoria and South Australia are trialling different methods of breaking down solar panels from using chemicals and heat, to dry processes and computerised mechanical systems.
They each say their process is better than the one next door. But all have admitted one thing: the margins are not great.
Most solar recyclers strip and sell the aluminium from the frame, try to extract as many valuable metals as possible, then stockpile the rest.
Mr Polhill says at the moment, "it would be cheaper to put them into landfill than to recover them".
"Over the last few years companies have started to invest in recovering other materials but that is in its infancy and those materials have a very small market," he says.
But, there is one part of a solar panel that could change that: nano silicon. Silicon is found within the black and grey panels that capture sunlight.
And when refined into its purest form, nano silicon, it can sell for about $64,000 per kilogram. It is a ubiquitous substance used in everything from mobile phones and concrete to rubber, plastic, and computer chips.
Until now it has been tricky to reduce silicon down into its nano particles without using harmful chemicals like hydrochloric acid and nitric acid.
But researchers from Deakin University in Geelong say they have figured out a way to do it that is cheap, effective and safe for the environment. Researchers at the university started investigating their theory in 2019 and have repeatedly tested and reviewed the process to prove it can work and be scaled up for commercial use.
"Compared to other processes around the world, my process is really environmentally friendly," Deakin senior research fellow Mokhlesur Rahman says.
Dr Rahman says he's also discovered a way to combine nano silicon with graphite to create longer-lasting lithium-ion batteries for use in products like electric cars.
It is a breakthrough that could make recycling solar panels a far more viable industry.
Back at his recycling plant, Mr Vippond has been trying to create new products like sleepers and furniture from solar panel products, but says a way to easily and cheaply extract and sell nano silicon would be a game changer.
"Getting the best recovery out of the solar panel is probably more paramount than any other product just in relation to that [environmentally conscious] category that it comes from," he says. "Some of the work like Deakin University and others are doing in their research is quite incredible."
But Mr Polhill is sceptical. "How do we take that research and create a business model — that's the real nut to crack in this," he says.
"Recycling solar panels in Australia is in its infancy. So it needs continuous investment from both industry and from government to support this developing market and some of the technologies as well."
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-01-22/solar-panel-recycling-nano-silicon-extraction/101865624
***************************************My other blogs. Main ones below
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM )
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
*****************************************
Jim Hansen and his twin
No comments:
Post a Comment