We can’t afford to save the planet. That’s the real bottom-line elephant in the room that nobody wants to admit. Instead, we keep acting as if that economic reality will change and we’ll actually put our money where our mouth is regarding environmental concern. Compared to all the other related elephants we relegate to the periphery of our vision, that’s the one we have the most difficulty acknowledging. 

Driving to Brunswick and back in my 2002 Echo I try to ignore the nagging suspicion that its carbon footprint’s actually smaller than that of my 2013 Prius. I also try to ignore comparison of the amount of plastic each contains. Thoughts on the technological-environmental trade-offs of the hybrid, from weight and size to its battery’s eventual disposal, similarly nag, but I try my best to eclipse all that negativity with positive feelings of having headed in the right direction in those car purchases. 

Oddly, given its sparse low-tech accoutrements, the Echo has the superior sound system. Frequently it’s tuned to public broadcasting discussions of just such questions of economic and environmental sustainability. There’s certainly no dearth of information in today’s 24-7 digital interconnection. No lack of complex questions and difficult answers to our challenges in cohabitation and survival. Even the local oldies radio format weighs in with pithy commentary between mostly escapist songs of bygone years’ supposed innocence and blissful ignorance as to their own era’s planetary neglect. An especially spot-on one-liner piece of wisdom quipped: “If the planet was a bank it would have already been saved.” 

Though it might seem otherwise, I’m not a contrarian or a Luddite by nature. I’m mostly a struggling status quo optimist when left alone, especially when tending a garden with the latest technology in hand tools. Both of those dissident mindsets are byproducts of my education and ongoing attempts to exercise some critical thinking in staying reasonably informed. Paying attention means noticing what’s missing from the picture as much as what’s front and center. Keeping an open mind means constantly questioning one’s own assumptions and even more so what passes for conventional wisdom. Keeping adequately sane requires one to nevertheless accept that knowledge, truth and experience aren’t necessarily the same thing. 

Bath’s Patten Free Library recently showcased three local films meant to bolster area awareness regarding climate change action. Each one evidenced real hopefulness that it’s finally time for replacing denial with acceptance and corrective engagement. Each film documented positive steps in advancing solutions, large and small, to slowing global warming and ongoing pollution threatening our existence. One, created by members of Morse High’s environmental club, questioned members of Bath’s community on how to immediately employ eco-friendly solutions. They themselves took well-deserved pride in instrumentally eliminating their school cafeteria’s use of plastic cutlery. They then expressed hope that although their new campus won’t initially incorporate solar energy it may be economically green-lighted somewhere down the road. A major teaching moment deferred. Affordability 101, lesson learned. 

One film had the more encouraging tale of Boothbay Harbor’s major adoption of solar panel installations townwide, reinforcing the common progressive perception that solar power’s a win-win economic and environmental advancement over the harmful continuance of carbon derived energy. Solar’s a renewable eco-championing means of providing clean energy that could become a major economic engine if widely embraced. Three heartfelt small films. One evening’s largely well-attended offering of much-needed optimism. 

All to the good until the following day. For no particular reason, conventional wisdom of solar power’s environmental correctness suddenly begged challenging. What are solar panels made of? Are they recycled? Is there an environmental downside? 

Googling “Solar panel disposal” the word “Toxic” was automatically added by a seemingly eco-prescient robot. The search that followed wasn’t for the faint of heart. 

The International Renewable Energy Agency estimates that solar waste worldwide will surpass 78 million tons by 2050. Large-scale solar farms are potentially catastrophic environmental nightmares if damaged by severe weather, and each individual solar panel is a 25 year ticking time bomb of hazardous disposal responsibility currently ignored. Recycling costs more than the economic return in doing so, and mandating such cost inclusion in production overhead impedes industry growth. Even when properly recycled, burning off plastic components to render copper, heavy metals and rare earth elements causes highly toxic airborne irreversible pollution. Though mostly made of glass, even that recyclability is compromised by “cost-effective” removal practices. Solar power’s similarities with nuclear power remains a comparison I wish I’d never invited. Still a better alternative, solar needs similar scrutiny. 

Who’d ever imagine that aspect of what’s promoted as a totally benign “natural” energy source? Not I. Nor mentioned by anyone I know. How could that blindside be waiting just an idle Internet query away and not already be widely disseminated by the mainstream media? Perhaps it’s just more fake news to discredit environmental correctness and not another problematic elephant. Maybe, as with well reported environmental hazards connected with now indispensable cell phones, nobody welcomes having another tech-venerated bubble burst. Meanwhile, technology remains our economic and societal lifeblood, and the planet’s mortal enemy. 

Gary Anderson lives in Bath.