As the name suggests, solar energy derives its energy from the sun. It is the creation of energy through the heat and light generated from the sun. This energy, because it takes the form of solar radiation it can be used in the production of electricity which is harnessed with the used of solar panels which is carefully provided by solar panels Melbourne.
The amount of energy produced by the sun in a single day can be used to meet the world’s need for energy in a year. Despite the virtue the sun provides, we have failed to put it to adequate use.
Although the reason for the unpopular wide adoption of social energy is based on the claim that it is quite expensive and inefficient. However, since becoming a household name, companies have delved into studies to provide the best ways through which solar energy can be efficiently transformed into electricity and other usages.
1. Solar Energy is Renewable
Among other sources of energy, solar energy remains the most renewable. This is the most important feature of the solar energy. It can be put to use in any part of the world on a daily basis with any fear of it finishing. As long as the sun remains, there is a guarantee that the solar energy would remain a reason being that the sun is its source.
2. It Reduces Cost
The cost of providing electricity to homes across the world has become very expensive. However, with the implementation of the solar energy in the provision of electricity, the cost is reduced to the barest minimum. More so, one can get extra money by exporting excess back to the grid if your panel is connected to the grid.
3. Various Use cases
Known as the power of the people, solar energy does more than generating heat and light. It can be used to provide electricity in areas that lack grids, for the provision of clean water. Satellites in space can also be powered by solar energy. Recently, a company in Japan called Sharp invented a transparent window powered by solar energy.
4. Minimal cost for maintenance
There is little maintenance need for solar panels as all that is needed is that they are kept clean. Cleaning can be some few times in a year. The part that might demand maintenance is the inverter itself and that’s usually after five to ten years due to its constant work rate to provide electricity from solar energy. The wiring might also need to be changed after sometimes. However, upon the initial cost, there is just a little money to spend on maintenance over the years.
5. It is climate-friendly
Adopting the use of solar energy does not come with so much an issue of pollution as seen in other sources of energy. The amount of pollution associated with the solar energy as regards transporting, manufacturing and installing solar related systems cannot be compared with other sources. Since the adoption of solar energy would bring a stall to the usage of other sources of energy, issues affecting climate would be reduced.
6. Development of Technology
There is a lot of improvement and advancement in the technology industry due to the solar energy. Nanotechnology and quantum physics offers new technological systems that can bring out the best in solar panels and powers systems.
Purchasing and installing solar systems is very expensive. Despite the part intervention of some government, the price to be paid by homeowners is still on the high. There are claims that the prices would go down over time as it is still very expensive due to its novelty.
2. Its functionality depends on the weather
The solar system depends largely on sunshine. In times, like winter, where there is hardly sun, the solar system is not as effective as it should be. More so, it cannot acquire energy at night except if thermodynamic panels are employed.
3. Storage systems are costly
To enjoy all day long usage, solar energies can be stored in batteries. However, acquiring these batteries could be quite expensive considering the number of batteries to be used.
4. Requires large space
To produce more electricity, there would be the need for more solar panels to receive as much energy from the sun as possible. These panels demand space and if you do not have that amount of space, your energy needs would be met by depending on the grid.
In all, solar energy has its good and bad sides but it is certain that with time, solutions would be provided for its shortcomings, making life an easier and better place to live.
There are several reasons why my children will not go to public school. One of the major ones is simple: I don’t want the government educating them. No matter how well intentioned individual teachers are, or how well-intentioned politicians are, the fact remains that schools teach what they think is best to create little citizens.
Many consider this the whole point of schools, to create good citizens. This requires children being taught what makes a good citizen. Here is my contention. What does make a good citizen? If you look at our current public education system, a good citizens obeys the laws, doesn’t do drugs (except maybe alcohol, when they have reached a government-approved age), recycles, votes, and is tolerant of any and all different lifestyles and cultures.
References to a cap on carbon emissions and a campaign pledge to spend $150 billion on clean energy technologies disappeared from the White House website in June…Deleted items include a section titled “Closing the Carbon Loophole and Cracking Down on Polluters” that offered broad-brush goals for “protecting American consumers” and “promoting U.S. competitiveness.” Also eliminated was President Barack Obama’s oft-repeated campaign call to spend $150 billion over a decade on “energy research and development to transition to a clean energy economy.
Could Obama be backing off of legislative action to combat climate change? The White House denies this, saying they were simply updating information. But polling shows Americans are caring less and less about tackling climate change, especially as the economy seems to get worse. Maybe they will take the hint, finally
Joe, this article is written by a women who either does not understand the issue, or is willing to further distort it. This is readily apparent in multiple ways, and I’ll highlight a few. You got my fingers going, so this is going to be fairly long.
The headline claims that multiple papers have retracted ‘climategate’ claims. She actually only quotes one paper (references another German paper), and here is the problem: Neither of these articles have anything to do whatsoever with climategate. It is a subtle misdirection, she opens up by talking about climategate then mentions the two article retractions, but there is no link between the two. Climategate was a leak or hack of emails from the CRU in Britian, the articles were talking about mistakes in the UN IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), two totally separate issues. This mistake invalidates the entire point of the article, but the mistakes don’t stop there.
Her opening statement speaks of climategate as a “highly orchestrated, manufactured scandal”, which is a hard pill to swallow. The emails were released on a relatively unknown blog, and bloggers (like me) went through the emails and found all the goodies ourselves. Even is this claim is to be believed, the author attempts to completely dismiss climategate by mentioning the ‘inquiries’ into Jones and Mann. The inquiry into Jones is almost comical in its brevity. Considering the gravity of the accusations and the serious implications of Jones cooking the books, the Oxburgh report was a total of….five pages. Not only that, but they didn’t keep any record of how they reached their conclusions that Jones was innocent, leaving us to simply trust them. The Mann investigation was just as bad. Penn State had little incentive to chastise the man who gets them millions every year in funding.
If it is hard for you to believe that both of these investigations could be farces, let me simply direct you to the climategate e-mails themselves. Anyone who claims that climategate is a non-issue has not read the e-mails, or doesn’t understand them. Read them here (I can highlight a few of the better ones if you desire):
Yet another problem with the article is the focus on ONE mistake in the AR4. This is still regarded by many to be a mistake, but even if you throw out this Amazon claim the AR4 is still full of mistakes. The false glacier claim is the most well known, but there are many more, quite a few which yours truly has found. They claim that climate change will reduce African tourism, but their source doesn’t mention Africa or tourism. They claim Canadian wildfires substantially negatively affected the local economy, but their source actually shows positive gains. They claim that the mangroves in Bangladesh are being irreversibly damaged by climate change, yet their source only mentions Pakistan’s mangroves. They cite a newspaper article claiming that 1.3 billion agricultural workers will be negatively affected by climate change, yet the article doesn’t cite any study or article at all. These are just some of the mistakes I personally have found. Yet another IPCC mistake (at least it seems to be so far) was revealed just yesterday: To claim that Climategate is now rendered false by two newspaper’s retractions about a separate issue, and to go on and claim that the AR4 actually isn’t full of mistakes, is a lie. As Mark Twain said, “A lie can get halfway around the world while the truth is still putting its boots on.”
After all, there is a myriad of organizations both national and international, government and NGO which deal with protecting biodiversity. To answer why I looked at the IPBES site itself:
Scientific knowledge on the links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being has increased significantly since the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MAs) was completed. There is however a need for a stronger international science-policy platform to enable emerging scientific knowledge to be translated into specific policy action at the appropriate levels.
I could probably finish this post here, because this quote reveals that the IPBES is not about advancing the science. It exists to “enable emerging scientific knowledge to be translated into specific policy action”. ‘Specific policy action’ isn’t something which scientists or citizens create (directly), policy is created by governments. The IPBES’ admitted purpose is to use science to create policy. They don’t perform any science (they only review) and they can’t make policy, so what are they really? They are the basis, the starting point, the foundation, of future policy action. Just like those in Copenhagen would create new treaties based on the IPCC’s ‘findings’, the IPBES is being used to form a basis for such future action.
So far this isn’t very controversial. The IPBES more or less openly admits this on their site. However, it isn’t only the IPBES that sees this new panel as a way to force ‘specific policy action’. I’ve looked through the documents of other organizations to see their view on the issue, and I’ve found some revealing items.
This document is from Ramsar, a global convention on wetlands, titled “Progress and advice on IPBES”, and written in late April or early May this year. This contains a chronological account of how the IPBES was formed, and is an informative read. Page 5 states the following:
Awareness-raising campaigns for the general public are also needed
22. Access to and use of knowledge, which should be policy-relevant and not policy prescriptive, was seen as critically important. It is also important, upon request, to develop tools and methodologies to assist policy formulation, e.g., sub-global assessments with the involvement of end users; multi-criteria decision analysis tools; cost benefit analyses; and valuation methodologies for ecosystem services. It was considered vital for the knowledge base to be interpreted for users.
Interesting turn of phrase. Still, there are more blatant admissions elsewhere. In this IUCN information paper they talk about the “IUCN’s vision for an Intergovernmental and Multistakeholder Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)”. Here is their vision (excerpts from various places, emphasis mine):
Based on the five identified needs above, and a review of existing processes meeting some of these needs, the overarching role of IPBES should be to provide relevant decision making processes with independent, authoritative, internationally peer-reviewed scientific information on changes in biodiversity and ecosystem services, the implications of these changes for human well-being, and possible response measures at multiple scales. IPBES should be established with the view to it becoming the standard international source of policy-relevant scientific information on knowledge relating to biodiversity and ecosystems services, and therefore meet the needs of decision-makers in the environmental sectors, and at the environment development nexus.
1. Facilitating and catalyzing knowledge generation:
IPBES should not itself conduct research, but rather should identify gaps in policy-relevant science that could be filled by further research, play a role in catalyzing such research, and also form a channel for the existing scientific information to contribute to policy making. IPBES would provide a synthesis mechanism to respond to the needs of MEAs and others stakeholders for scientific information on biodiversity and ecosystem services, and in doing so would provide a robust international peer review process for scientific contributions to policy making.
In addition, in facilitating knowledge generation, IPBES should ensure that guidance is provided to the scientific community on the identified policy priorities. This could involve, for example:
1. Disseminating direct requests from subsidiary bodies of MEAs and other relevant processes to scientific networks, and convening representatives of the scientific community to plan a response to those needs.
2. Compiling science-policy digests for the scientific community to raise awareness of key policy needs and gaps in knowledge to support policy development.
3. Liaising with international research networks and organizations (such as ICSU, DIVERSITAS, and IHDP) and national research funding councils to support prioritizing investment in and implementation of policy relevant science.
In addition to supporting and undertaking assessments, IPBES should also have a function of horizon scanning and early warning on policy-relevant biodiversity and ecosystem services science.Whilst this would build on the assessments implemented, it would also provide opportunity for rapid assessment of key emerging issues to be brought to the attention of the IPBES bureau and/or plenary.
In order to be most effective, IPBES would benefit considerably from building capacity to undertake policy relevant science, to assess that science through scientific assessment, and to use information from such an assessment in the decision-making process. IPBES could carry out capacity building activities such as the production and promotion of training material on biodiversity and ecosystem service assessment, and providing opportunities for scientists and decision-makers from developing and developed countries to engage in science-policy processes. There will also be indirect capacity building opportunities provided by IPBES, through raising international awareness of policy-relevant science and options to deliver this into decision-making processes at national and international scales.
I’m sure you can see the dangers of this vision. An institution which is the “standard international source of policy-relevant scientific information”, which will “identify gaps in policy-relevant science that could be filled by further research”, by helping “play a role in catalyzing such research, and also form a channel for the existing scientific information to contribute to policy making” wields tremendous influence. The “IPBES should ensure that guidance is provided to the scientific community on the identified policy priorities”. In this vision, the same massive inter-governmental organization will decide which science needs attention and which doesn’t, and then determine how the science applies to policy. This will blur the line between science and policy so far that the scientists could really be considered policymakers. After all, they are being told which ‘gaps’ need to be filled, then their findings are being used to further ‘specific policy action’. Scientists studying biodiversity will be directed by the IPBES towards certain areas (climate change anyone?) instead of others, and this alone poses a risk to the scientific community. Do we really trust the UN and world governments to direct the scientific inquires of an entire field, especially when the admitted purpose behind such research is ‘specific policy action’?
Another international organization has made their views of the IPBES known. Here is the Commonwealth Secretariat’s view on IPBES specifically (excerpts, emphasis added):
4.4 Permanent Base Science-Policy Interface
44. Rationale: Need for sound science for policy making, need for integration and holistic approach to scientific advice including development and environment interlinkages, need policy and MEA implementation review, need to address proliferation of multiple science assessments, identify emerging issues and threats…
47. Level of Political Difficulty: Medium-low difficulty–there has already been a lot of lessons learned from scientific mechanism such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and integrated assessments such as the Millennium (Ecosystem) Assessment (MA) that main challenge is to set up the authorizing environment for multiple MEAs and ensure the independence of science while keeping it salient to policy. Processes such as Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES formerly the International Mechanism of Scientific Expertise on Biodiversity or IMOSEB) have already created fertile ground for furthering this reform. The key now is to link it with the current IEG reform agenda.
What is this IEG (International Environmental Governance) reform agenda? Here is another quote from the same paper:
Global governance is the only means by which we can respond to the scale and complexity of environmental challenges and the evolving context within which they have to be addressed. Though some issues can be solved at the national level, many environmental problems, like pollution and overexploitation of shared resources, have international implications and require collective action. No state is immune to the effects of global environmental change and all states require effective governance to mitigate and adapt to such change.
No commentary needed. Let’s finish with the recent TEEB for Business report, issued on the 13’th of July. On page 13, in the section about politics, they make the following statement:
According to WBCSD, the key challenge in the transition to sustainability is improving the quality of governance. As described in Vision 2050, governance systems should respect the principle of subsidiarity (i.e. decentralizing and making decisions at the most appropriate local level) but they must also “pool sovereignty” where necessary to address international challenges such as trade, infectious disease, climate change, water resource management, high seas fisheries and other trans-boundary issues (WBCSD 2010: 6). According to WBCSD, future governance systems also need to be better at guiding markets to internalize environmental externalities, ensure transparency and inclusiveness, create a “level playing field” and enable business to develop and deploy sustainable solutions. An outstanding question is whether the expected shift in economic and political power towards the larger emerging economies (i.e. the so-called BRICS) will result in new attitudes and approaches to environmental management and ultimately help or hinder efforts to reach international cooperative agreements on managing the global commons.
The key challenge is improving governance. This is the heart of the issue which causes of climate change in australia. The IPBES was created in order to improve governance, by pushing scientific inquiry into certain areas then recommending policy based on that coerced science. These new policies would improve the quality of governance, at least according to those quoted above.
The science which will be directed by the IPBES is a tool, it will exist primarily as a justification for government action.