https://chemsec.org/pfas-waste-from-solar-panels-this-is-something-that-people-in-the-sector-dont-like-to-talk-about/
Here is an interesting site. Have a look around.
It looks like these nasty chemicals are being used for solar panels, frying >pans and Li-ion batteries and PPE when there is and alternative which is the >same cost.
Why are the people allowing the PFAS to be used?
On a related matter the amount of ground contaminated from the solar cells
is at the very least going to be a huge headach in the future. Radio active >material will be in second place as all this green, clean energy, splits out >the PFAS waste which the industry has no idea how to deal with it.
Another one of the EV, green energy's dirty little secrect.
The idea is building the PFAS should be out lawed. Let us hope this idea >powers up fast.
https://chemsec.org/pfas-waste-from-solar-panels-this-is-something-that-people-in-the-sector-dont-like-to-talk-about/
Here is an interesting site. Have a look around.
It looks like these nasty chemicals are being used for solar panels, frying >pans and Li-ion batteries and PPE when there is and alternative which is the >same cost.
Why are the people allowing the PFAS to be used?
On a related matter the amount of ground contaminated from the solar cells
is at the very least going to be a huge headach in the future. Radio active >material will be in second place as all this green, clean energy, splits out >the PFAS waste which the industry has no idea how to deal with it.
Another one of the EV, green energy's dirty little secrect.
The idea is building the PFAS should be out lawed. Let us hope this idea >powers up fast.
On 25 Dec 2024 06:54:30 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
https://chemsec.org/pfas-waste-from-solar-panels-this-is-something-that-people-in-the-sector-dont-like-to-talk-about/
Here is an interesting site. Have a look around.
It looks like these nasty chemicals are being used for solar panels, frying >>pans and Li-ion batteries and PPE when there is and alternative which is the >>same cost.
Why are the people allowing the PFAS to be used?
On a related matter the amount of ground contaminated from the solar cells >>is at the very least going to be a huge headach in the future. Radio active >>material will be in second place as all this green, clean energy, splits out >>the PFAS waste which the industry has no idea how to deal with it.
Another one of the EV, green energy's dirty little secrect.
The idea is building the PFAS should be out lawed. Let us hope this idea >>powers up fast.
The ultimate answer is for governments of large-population countries
to adopt measures that require producers of products to have to report
on how a product is manufactured, used and disposed of Said
manufacturers should be held responsible for any toxic consequences, >including safe manufacturing and disposal.
If large-population governments take this action the manufacturer may
well adopt measures that are available world-wide. In NZ, for
example, exporting manufacturers may well adopt such measures in order
to access markets that require these measures.
On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 10:43:08 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>We are ignoring no climate change commitments. And you cannot show otherwise - stop your lies.
wrote:
On 25 Dec 2024 06:54:30 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
https://chemsec.org/pfas-waste-from-solar-panels-this-is-something-that-people-in-the-sector-dont-like-to-talk-about/
Here is an interesting site. Have a look around.
It looks like these nasty chemicals are being used for solar panels, frying >>>pans and Li-ion batteries and PPE when there is and alternative which is the >>>same cost.
Why are the people allowing the PFAS to be used?
On a related matter the amount of ground contaminated from the solar cells >>>is at the very least going to be a huge headach in the future. Radio active >>>material will be in second place as all this green, clean energy, splits out >>>the PFAS waste which the industry has no idea how to deal with it.
Another one of the EV, green energy's dirty little secrect.
The idea is building the PFAS should be out lawed. Let us hope this idea >>>powers up fast.
The ultimate answer is for governments of large-population countries
to adopt measures that require producers of products to have to report
on how a product is manufactured, used and disposed of Said
manufacturers should be held responsible for any toxic consequences, >>including safe manufacturing and disposal.
If large-population governments take this action the manufacturer may
well adopt measures that are available world-wide. In NZ, for
example, exporting manufacturers may well adopt such measures in order
to access markets that require these measures.
The concern in France is from manufacturers worried about a reduction
in competitiveness - it is one of the reasons why such measures are
often agreed at an international level. A high level of manufacturing
may well correlate with high manufacturing, but there may be relevant >industries in smaller countries - or were you anticipating that New
Zealand would seek to ignore constraints, just as we appear to be
ignoring some climate-change commitments?
On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 10:43:08 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On 25 Dec 2024 06:54:30 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
https://chemsec.org/pfas-waste-from-solar-panels-this-is-something-that-people-in-the-sector-dont-like-to-talk-about/
Here is an interesting site. Have a look around.
It looks like these nasty chemicals are being used for solar panels, frying >>>pans and Li-ion batteries and PPE when there is and alternative which is the >>>same cost.
Why are the people allowing the PFAS to be used?
On a related matter the amount of ground contaminated from the solar cells >>>is at the very least going to be a huge headach in the future. Radio active >>>material will be in second place as all this green, clean energy, splits out >>>the PFAS waste which the industry has no idea how to deal with it.
Another one of the EV, green energy's dirty little secrect.
The idea is building the PFAS should be out lawed. Let us hope this idea >>>powers up fast.
The ultimate answer is for governments of large-population countries
to adopt measures that require producers of products to have to report
on how a product is manufactured, used and disposed of Said
manufacturers should be held responsible for any toxic consequences, >>including safe manufacturing and disposal.
If large-population governments take this action the manufacturer may
well adopt measures that are available world-wide. In NZ, for
example, exporting manufacturers may well adopt such measures in order
to access markets that require these measures.
The concern in France is from manufacturers worried about a reduction
in competitiveness - it is one of the reasons why such measures are
often agreed at an international level. A high level of manufacturing
may well correlate with high manufacturing, but there may be relevant >industries in smaller countries - or were you anticipating that New
Zealand would seek to ignore constraints, just as we appear to be
ignoring some climate-change commitments?
On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 15:02:39 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 10:43:08 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
On 25 Dec 2024 06:54:30 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
https://chemsec.org/pfas-waste-from-solar-panels-this-is-something-that-people-in-the-sector-dont-like-to-talk-about/
Here is an interesting site. Have a look around.
It looks like these nasty chemicals are being used for solar panels, frying >>>>pans and Li-ion batteries and PPE when there is and alternative which is the
same cost.
Why are the people allowing the PFAS to be used?
On a related matter the amount of ground contaminated from the solar cells >>>>is at the very least going to be a huge headach in the future. Radio active >>>>material will be in second place as all this green, clean energy, splits out
the PFAS waste which the industry has no idea how to deal with it.
Another one of the EV, green energy's dirty little secrect.
The idea is building the PFAS should be out lawed. Let us hope this idea >>>>powers up fast.
The ultimate answer is for governments of large-population countries
to adopt measures that require producers of products to have to report
on how a product is manufactured, used and disposed of Said >>>manufacturers should be held responsible for any toxic consequences, >>>including safe manufacturing and disposal.
If large-population governments take this action the manufacturer may >>>well adopt measures that are available world-wide. In NZ, for
example, exporting manufacturers may well adopt such measures in order
to access markets that require these measures.
The concern in France is from manufacturers worried about a reduction
in competitiveness - it is one of the reasons why such measures are
often agreed at an international level. A high level of manufacturing
may well correlate with high manufacturing, but there may be relevant >>industries in smaller countries - or were you anticipating that New
Zealand would seek to ignore constraints, just as we appear to be
ignoring some climate-change commitments?
What has any of this got to do with Gordon's OP? The only issue here
is that products whose use avoids pollution is very pollutant when it
is manufactured, then reaches the end of its operational life. No
connection with any particular country or manufacturer.
On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 17:22:48 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 15:02:39 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 10:43:08 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
On 25 Dec 2024 06:54:30 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
https://chemsec.org/pfas-waste-from-solar-panels-this-is-something-that-people-in-the-sector-dont-like-to-talk-about/
Here is an interesting site. Have a look around.
It looks like these nasty chemicals are being used for solar panels, frying
pans and Li-ion batteries and PPE when there is and alternative which is the
same cost.
Why are the people allowing the PFAS to be used?
On a related matter the amount of ground contaminated from the solar cells >>>>>is at the very least going to be a huge headach in the future. Radio active
material will be in second place as all this green, clean energy, splits out
the PFAS waste which the industry has no idea how to deal with it.
Another one of the EV, green energy's dirty little secrect.
The idea is building the PFAS should be out lawed. Let us hope this idea >>>>>powers up fast.
The ultimate answer is for governments of large-population countries
to adopt measures that require producers of products to have to report >>>>on how a product is manufactured, used and disposed of Said >>>>manufacturers should be held responsible for any toxic consequences, >>>>including safe manufacturing and disposal.
If large-population governments take this action the manufacturer may >>>>well adopt measures that are available world-wide. In NZ, for
example, exporting manufacturers may well adopt such measures in order >>>>to access markets that require these measures.
The concern in France is from manufacturers worried about a reduction
in competitiveness - it is one of the reasons why such measures are
often agreed at an international level. A high level of manufacturing
may well correlate with high manufacturing, but there may be relevant >>>industries in smaller countries - or were you anticipating that New >>>Zealand would seek to ignore constraints, just as we appear to be >>>ignoring some climate-change commitments?
What has any of this got to do with Gordon's OP? The only issue here
is that products whose use avoids pollution is very pollutant when it
is manufactured, then reaches the end of its operational life. No >>connection with any particular country or manufacturer.
It relates to pfas - see the links below the article above, but sorry
I should have posted the following link from there which talks about
the problems of trying to ban pfas in appliances. >https://chemsec.org/what-a-load-of-crepe-why-industry-wants-to-keep-pfas-in-your-kitchen/
If banning pfas is a good idea, why avoid it just because we are not a
"large population" country?
On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 16:16:23 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>so it is not the concept of banning PFAs that disturbs, you, but that
wrote:
On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 17:22:48 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 15:02:39 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 10:43:08 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:
On 25 Dec 2024 06:54:30 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
https://chemsec.org/pfas-waste-from-solar-panels-this-is-something-that-people-in-the-sector-dont-like-to-talk-about/
Here is an interesting site. Have a look around.
It looks like these nasty chemicals are being used for solar panels, frying
pans and Li-ion batteries and PPE when there is and alternative which is the
same cost.
Why are the people allowing the PFAS to be used?
On a related matter the amount of ground contaminated from the solar cells
is at the very least going to be a huge headach in the future. Radio active
material will be in second place as all this green, clean energy, splits out
the PFAS waste which the industry has no idea how to deal with it.
Another one of the EV, green energy's dirty little secrect.
The idea is building the PFAS should be out lawed. Let us hope this idea >>>>>>powers up fast.
The ultimate answer is for governments of large-population countries >>>>>to adopt measures that require producers of products to have to report >>>>>on how a product is manufactured, used and disposed of Said >>>>>manufacturers should be held responsible for any toxic consequences, >>>>>including safe manufacturing and disposal.
If large-population governments take this action the manufacturer may >>>>>well adopt measures that are available world-wide. In NZ, for >>>>>example, exporting manufacturers may well adopt such measures in order >>>>>to access markets that require these measures.
The concern in France is from manufacturers worried about a reduction >>>>in competitiveness - it is one of the reasons why such measures are >>>>often agreed at an international level. A high level of manufacturing >>>>may well correlate with high manufacturing, but there may be relevant >>>>industries in smaller countries - or were you anticipating that New >>>>Zealand would seek to ignore constraints, just as we appear to be >>>>ignoring some climate-change commitments?
What has any of this got to do with Gordon's OP? The only issue here
is that products whose use avoids pollution is very pollutant when it
is manufactured, then reaches the end of its operational life. No >>>connection with any particular country or manufacturer.
It relates to pfas - see the links below the article above, but sorry
I should have posted the following link from there which talks about
the problems of trying to ban pfas in appliances. >>https://chemsec.org/what-a-load-of-crepe-why-industry-wants-to-keep-pfas-in-your-kitchen/
If banning pfas is a good idea, why avoid it just because we are not a >>"large population" country?
Banning PFAs by small countries such as NZ is pointless and damages
our economic for no greater good.
On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 20:45:21 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 16:16:23 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:so it is not the concept of banning PFAs that disturbs, you, but that
On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 17:22:48 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 15:02:39 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 10:43:08 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:
On 25 Dec 2024 06:54:30 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
https://chemsec.org/pfas-waste-from-solar-panels-this-is-something-that-people-in-the-sector-dont-like-to-talk-about/
Here is an interesting site. Have a look around.
It looks like these nasty chemicals are being used for solar panels, frying
pans and Li-ion batteries and PPE when there is and alternative which is the
same cost.
Why are the people allowing the PFAS to be used?
On a related matter the amount of ground contaminated from the solar cells
is at the very least going to be a huge headach in the future. Radio active
material will be in second place as all this green, clean energy, splits out
the PFAS waste which the industry has no idea how to deal with it. >>>>>>>
Another one of the EV, green energy's dirty little secrect.
The idea is building the PFAS should be out lawed. Let us hope this idea >>>>>>>powers up fast.
The ultimate answer is for governments of large-population countries >>>>>>to adopt measures that require producers of products to have to report >>>>>>on how a product is manufactured, used and disposed of Said >>>>>>manufacturers should be held responsible for any toxic consequences, >>>>>>including safe manufacturing and disposal.
If large-population governments take this action the manufacturer may >>>>>>well adopt measures that are available world-wide. In NZ, for >>>>>>example, exporting manufacturers may well adopt such measures in order >>>>>>to access markets that require these measures.
The concern in France is from manufacturers worried about a reduction >>>>>in competitiveness - it is one of the reasons why such measures are >>>>>often agreed at an international level. A high level of manufacturing >>>>>may well correlate with high manufacturing, but there may be relevant >>>>>industries in smaller countries - or were you anticipating that New >>>>>Zealand would seek to ignore constraints, just as we appear to be >>>>>ignoring some climate-change commitments?
What has any of this got to do with Gordon's OP? The only issue here >>>>is that products whose use avoids pollution is very pollutant when it >>>>is manufactured, then reaches the end of its operational life. No >>>>connection with any particular country or manufacturer.
It relates to pfas - see the links below the article above, but sorry
I should have posted the following link from there which talks about
the problems of trying to ban pfas in appliances. >>>https://chemsec.org/what-a-load-of-crepe-why-industry-wants-to-keep-pfas-in-your-kitchen/
If banning pfas is a good idea, why avoid it just because we are not a >>>"large population" country?
Banning PFAs by small countries such as NZ is pointless and damages
our economic for no greater good.
New Zealand should either lead or risk short term profit for doing
what is right - which large country do you think we should be
following before we make up our mind to do what is right?
On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 22:28:54 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 20:45:21 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 16:16:23 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:so it is not the concept of banning PFAs that disturbs, you, but that
On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 17:22:48 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:
On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 15:02:39 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:
On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 10:43:08 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:
On 25 Dec 2024 06:54:30 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
https://chemsec.org/pfas-waste-from-solar-panels-this-is-something-that-people-in-the-sector-dont-like-to-talk-about/
Here is an interesting site. Have a look around.
It looks like these nasty chemicals are being used for solar panels, frying
pans and Li-ion batteries and PPE when there is and alternative which is the
same cost.
Why are the people allowing the PFAS to be used?
On a related matter the amount of ground contaminated from the solar cells
is at the very least going to be a huge headach in the future. Radio active
material will be in second place as all this green, clean energy, splits out
the PFAS waste which the industry has no idea how to deal with it. >>>>>>>>
Another one of the EV, green energy's dirty little secrect.
The idea is building the PFAS should be out lawed. Let us hope this idea
powers up fast.
The ultimate answer is for governments of large-population countries >>>>>>>to adopt measures that require producers of products to have to report >>>>>>>on how a product is manufactured, used and disposed of Said >>>>>>>manufacturers should be held responsible for any toxic consequences, >>>>>>>including safe manufacturing and disposal.
If large-population governments take this action the manufacturer may >>>>>>>well adopt measures that are available world-wide. In NZ, for >>>>>>>example, exporting manufacturers may well adopt such measures in order >>>>>>>to access markets that require these measures.
The concern in France is from manufacturers worried about a reduction >>>>>>in competitiveness - it is one of the reasons why such measures are >>>>>>often agreed at an international level. A high level of manufacturing >>>>>>may well correlate with high manufacturing, but there may be relevant >>>>>>industries in smaller countries - or were you anticipating that New >>>>>>Zealand would seek to ignore constraints, just as we appear to be >>>>>>ignoring some climate-change commitments?
What has any of this got to do with Gordon's OP? The only issue here >>>>>is that products whose use avoids pollution is very pollutant when it >>>>>is manufactured, then reaches the end of its operational life. No >>>>>connection with any particular country or manufacturer.
It relates to pfas - see the links below the article above, but sorry
I should have posted the following link from there which talks about >>>>the problems of trying to ban pfas in appliances. >>>>https://chemsec.org/what-a-load-of-crepe-why-industry-wants-to-keep-pfas-in-your-kitchen/
If banning pfas is a good idea, why avoid it just because we are not a >>>>"large population" country?
Banning PFAs by small countries such as NZ is pointless and damages
our economic for no greater good.
New Zealand should either lead or risk short term profit for doing
what is right - which large country do you think we should be
following before we make up our mind to do what is right?
Ban, tax, regulate.
Are they the only spanners in your favourite politician's toolbox?
How about leaving people the hell alone and the politicians mind their
own business?
Have you ever thought of that?
Bill.
On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 20:45:21 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>Were you dropped on your head as a child? Or, do you have some genetic propensity for nastiness? Whatever the cause, you would serve the world better if you barricaded yourself in your cave.
wrote:
On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 16:16:23 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:so it is not the concept of banning PFAs that disturbs, you, but that
On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 17:22:48 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 15:02:39 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 10:43:08 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:
On 25 Dec 2024 06:54:30 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
https://chemsec.org/pfas-waste-from-solar-panels-this-is-something-that-people-in-the-sector-dont-like-to-talk-about/
Here is an interesting site. Have a look around.
It looks like these nasty chemicals are being used for solar panels, >>>>>>>frying
pans and Li-ion batteries and PPE when there is and alternative which is >>>>>>>the
same cost.
Why are the people allowing the PFAS to be used?
On a related matter the amount of ground contaminated from the solar >>>>>>>cells
is at the very least going to be a huge headach in the future. Radio >>>>>>>active
material will be in second place as all this green, clean energy, splits >>>>>>>out
the PFAS waste which the industry has no idea how to deal with it. >>>>>>>
Another one of the EV, green energy's dirty little secrect.
The idea is building the PFAS should be out lawed. Let us hope this idea >>>>>>>powers up fast.
The ultimate answer is for governments of large-population countries >>>>>>to adopt measures that require producers of products to have to report >>>>>>on how a product is manufactured, used and disposed of Said >>>>>>manufacturers should be held responsible for any toxic consequences, >>>>>>including safe manufacturing and disposal.
If large-population governments take this action the manufacturer may >>>>>>well adopt measures that are available world-wide. In NZ, for >>>>>>example, exporting manufacturers may well adopt such measures in order >>>>>>to access markets that require these measures.
The concern in France is from manufacturers worried about a reduction >>>>>in competitiveness - it is one of the reasons why such measures are >>>>>often agreed at an international level. A high level of manufacturing >>>>>may well correlate with high manufacturing, but there may be relevant >>>>>industries in smaller countries - or were you anticipating that New >>>>>Zealand would seek to ignore constraints, just as we appear to be >>>>>ignoring some climate-change commitments?
What has any of this got to do with Gordon's OP? The only issue here >>>>is that products whose use avoids pollution is very pollutant when it >>>>is manufactured, then reaches the end of its operational life. No >>>>connection with any particular country or manufacturer.
It relates to pfas - see the links below the article above, but sorry
I should have posted the following link from there which talks about
the problems of trying to ban pfas in appliances. >>>https://chemsec.org/what-a-load-of-crepe-why-industry-wants-to-keep-pfas-in-your-kitchen/
If banning pfas is a good idea, why avoid it just because we are not a >>>"large population" country?
Banning PFAs by small countries such as NZ is pointless and damages
our economic for no greater good.
New Zealand should either lead or risk short term profit for doing
what is right - which large country do you think we should be
following before we make up our mind to do what is right?
On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 20:45:21 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 16:16:23 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:so it is not the concept of banning PFAs that disturbs, you,
On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 17:22:48 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 15:02:39 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 10:43:08 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:
On 25 Dec 2024 06:54:30 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
https://chemsec.org/pfas-waste-from-solar-panels-this-is-something-that-people-in-the-sector-dont-like-to-talk-about/
Here is an interesting site. Have a look around.
It looks like these nasty chemicals are being used for solar panels, frying
pans and Li-ion batteries and PPE when there is and alternative which is the
same cost.
Why are the people allowing the PFAS to be used?
On a related matter the amount of ground contaminated from the solar cells
is at the very least going to be a huge headach in the future. Radio active
material will be in second place as all this green, clean energy, splits out
the PFAS waste which the industry has no idea how to deal with it. >>>>>>>
Another one of the EV, green energy's dirty little secrect.
The idea is building the PFAS should be out lawed. Let us hope this idea >>>>>>>powers up fast.
The ultimate answer is for governments of large-population countries >>>>>>to adopt measures that require producers of products to have to report >>>>>>on how a product is manufactured, used and disposed of Said >>>>>>manufacturers should be held responsible for any toxic consequences, >>>>>>including safe manufacturing and disposal.
If large-population governments take this action the manufacturer may >>>>>>well adopt measures that are available world-wide. In NZ, for >>>>>>example, exporting manufacturers may well adopt such measures in order >>>>>>to access markets that require these measures.
The concern in France is from manufacturers worried about a reduction >>>>>in competitiveness - it is one of the reasons why such measures are >>>>>often agreed at an international level. A high level of manufacturing >>>>>may well correlate with high manufacturing, but there may be relevant >>>>>industries in smaller countries - or were you anticipating that New >>>>>Zealand would seek to ignore constraints, just as we appear to be >>>>>ignoring some climate-change commitments?
What has any of this got to do with Gordon's OP? The only issue here >>>>is that products whose use avoids pollution is very pollutant when it >>>>is manufactured, then reaches the end of its operational life. No >>>>connection with any particular country or manufacturer.
It relates to pfas - see the links below the article above, but sorry
I should have posted the following link from there which talks about
the problems of trying to ban pfas in appliances. >>>https://chemsec.org/what-a-load-of-crepe-why-industry-wants-to-keep-pfas-in-your-kitchen/
If banning pfas is a good idea, why avoid it just because we are not a >>>"large population" country?
Banning PFAs by small countries such as NZ is pointless and damages
our economic for no greater good.
but that
New Zealand should either lead or risk short term profit for doing
what is right - which large country do you think we should be
following before we make up our mind to do what is right?
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 10:43:08 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:We are ignoring no climate change commitments. And you cannot show otherwise - >stop your lies.
On 25 Dec 2024 06:54:30 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
https://chemsec.org/pfas-waste-from-solar-panels-this-is-something-that-people-in-the-sector-dont-like-to-talk-about/
Here is an interesting site. Have a look around.
It looks like these nasty chemicals are being used for solar panels, frying >>>>pans and Li-ion batteries and PPE when there is and alternative which is the
same cost.
Why are the people allowing the PFAS to be used?
On a related matter the amount of ground contaminated from the solar cells >>>>is at the very least going to be a huge headach in the future. Radio active >>>>material will be in second place as all this green, clean energy, splits out
the PFAS waste which the industry has no idea how to deal with it.
Another one of the EV, green energy's dirty little secrect.
The idea is building the PFAS should be out lawed. Let us hope this idea >>>>powers up fast.
The ultimate answer is for governments of large-population countries
to adopt measures that require producers of products to have to report
on how a product is manufactured, used and disposed of Said >>>manufacturers should be held responsible for any toxic consequences, >>>including safe manufacturing and disposal.
If large-population governments take this action the manufacturer may >>>well adopt measures that are available world-wide. In NZ, for
example, exporting manufacturers may well adopt such measures in order
to access markets that require these measures.
The concern in France is from manufacturers worried about a reduction
in competitiveness - it is one of the reasons why such measures are
often agreed at an international level. A high level of manufacturing
may well correlate with high manufacturing, but there may be relevant >>industries in smaller countries - or were you anticipating that New
Zealand would seek to ignore constraints, just as we appear to be
ignoring some climate-change commitments?
This thread is not about competitiveness it is about health and safety - please
try to keep up.
On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 03:00:43 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 10:43:08 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:We are ignoring no climate change commitments. And you cannot show otherwise -
On 25 Dec 2024 06:54:30 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
https://chemsec.org/pfas-waste-from-solar-panels-this-is-something-that-people-in-the-sector-dont-like-to-talk-about/
Here is an interesting site. Have a look around.
It looks like these nasty chemicals are being used for solar panels, frying
pans and Li-ion batteries and PPE when there is and alternative which is the
same cost.
Why are the people allowing the PFAS to be used?
On a related matter the amount of ground contaminated from the solar cells >>>>>is at the very least going to be a huge headach in the future. Radio active
material will be in second place as all this green, clean energy, splits out
the PFAS waste which the industry has no idea how to deal with it.
Another one of the EV, green energy's dirty little secrect.
The idea is building the PFAS should be out lawed. Let us hope this idea >>>>>powers up fast.
The ultimate answer is for governments of large-population countries
to adopt measures that require producers of products to have to report >>>>on how a product is manufactured, used and disposed of Said >>>>manufacturers should be held responsible for any toxic consequences, >>>>including safe manufacturing and disposal.
If large-population governments take this action the manufacturer may >>>>well adopt measures that are available world-wide. In NZ, for
example, exporting manufacturers may well adopt such measures in order >>>>to access markets that require these measures.
The concern in France is from manufacturers worried about a reduction
in competitiveness - it is one of the reasons why such measures are
often agreed at an international level. A high level of manufacturing
may well correlate with high manufacturing, but there may be relevant >>>industries in smaller countries - or were you anticipating that New >>>Zealand would seek to ignore constraints, just as we appear to be >>>ignoring some climate-change commitments?
stop your lies.
Try: https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/12/climate-change-perverse-incentive.html
"The government published its first Biennial Transparency Report under
the Paris Agreement yesterday, and the media has correctly noted that
it is missing any plan to actually meet our target. [link given to: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/537178/government-s-first-paris-agreement-report-fails-to-address-how-it-plans-to-hit-targets
] While it hypes domestic emissions reductions so far - which have
been good, but will likely get worse thanks to National - there's an
84 million ton gap between our expected emissions and our Paris NDC.
The report doesn't say how we're going to fill this, merely noting
that the government is "exploring options for international
cooperation".
Why so vague? And why haven't these "explorations" (which they've been
doing for years) resulted in any agreements? Other countries have been signing them, after all, and while the previous government was rightly
picky about whether foreign "credits" were real, I don't expect any
such pickiness from National. They'll happily accept cheap fraud, if
it means they get to tick the "target achieved" box, and dealing with
the consequences will be Somebody Else's Problem.
A possible answer may be buried near the bottom of that RNZ article:
"Also in the background, Treasury had advised Ministers Watts and
Nicola Willis that if the government made a statement to the effect
that it had signed a deal or made a firm commitment to do so, the
$3-23 billion estimated cost of purchasing offshore credits between
now and 2030 could start appearing as liability on the government's
books."
So, if they take even baby steps towards meeting our obligations, then
that's the "demonstration of intent" to meet the NDC that Treasury has
been refusing to recognise, the entire obligation becomes real in
accounting terms, and the government gets hit with a $23 billion
future liability. Normal people might think that recognising an actual obligation is good, and that including the cost also reifies the cost
of inaction and so incentivises fixing it. But all the government sees
is "books look bad; bad headline". And so we have a perverse
incentive: only by denying the problem and refusing to do anything
about it can the illusion of fiscal probity be maintained.
It would be nice to have actual adults running climate policy. But
that's not going to happen until we throw out this government and get
a new one."
This thread is not about competitiveness it is about health and safety - please
try to keep up.
So in relation to health and safety, Gordon identified a particular
component of some solar panels (which is also used in some consumer
products) that may be harmful - do you believe anything should be done
about that, Tony?
On 2024-12-27, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 03:00:43 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 10:43:08 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:We are ignoring no climate change commitments. And you cannot show otherwise -
On 25 Dec 2024 06:54:30 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
https://chemsec.org/pfas-waste-from-solar-panels-this-is-something-that-people-in-the-sector-dont-like-to-talk-about/
Here is an interesting site. Have a look around.
It looks like these nasty chemicals are being used for solar panels, frying
pans and Li-ion batteries and PPE when there is and alternative which is the
same cost.
Why are the people allowing the PFAS to be used?
On a related matter the amount of ground contaminated from the solar cells
is at the very least going to be a huge headach in the future. Radio active
material will be in second place as all this green, clean energy, splits out
the PFAS waste which the industry has no idea how to deal with it.
Another one of the EV, green energy's dirty little secrect.
The idea is building the PFAS should be out lawed. Let us hope this idea >>>>>>powers up fast.
The ultimate answer is for governments of large-population countries >>>>>to adopt measures that require producers of products to have to report >>>>>on how a product is manufactured, used and disposed of Said >>>>>manufacturers should be held responsible for any toxic consequences, >>>>>including safe manufacturing and disposal.
If large-population governments take this action the manufacturer may >>>>>well adopt measures that are available world-wide. In NZ, for >>>>>example, exporting manufacturers may well adopt such measures in order >>>>>to access markets that require these measures.
The concern in France is from manufacturers worried about a reduction >>>>in competitiveness - it is one of the reasons why such measures are >>>>often agreed at an international level. A high level of manufacturing >>>>may well correlate with high manufacturing, but there may be relevant >>>>industries in smaller countries - or were you anticipating that New >>>>Zealand would seek to ignore constraints, just as we appear to be >>>>ignoring some climate-change commitments?
stop your lies.
Try:
https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/12/climate-change-perverse-incentive.html
"The government published its first Biennial Transparency Report under
the Paris Agreement yesterday, and the media has correctly noted that
it is missing any plan to actually meet our target. [link given to:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/537178/government-s-first-paris-agreement-report-fails-to-address-how-it-plans-to-hit-targets
] While it hypes domestic emissions reductions so far - which have
been good, but will likely get worse thanks to National - there's an
84 million ton gap between our expected emissions and our Paris NDC.
The report doesn't say how we're going to fill this, merely noting
that the government is "exploring options for international
cooperation".
Why so vague? And why haven't these "explorations" (which they've been
doing for years) resulted in any agreements? Other countries have been
signing them, after all, and while the previous government was rightly
picky about whether foreign "credits" were real, I don't expect any
such pickiness from National. They'll happily accept cheap fraud, if
it means they get to tick the "target achieved" box, and dealing with
the consequences will be Somebody Else's Problem.
A possible answer may be buried near the bottom of that RNZ article:
"Also in the background, Treasury had advised Ministers Watts and
Nicola Willis that if the government made a statement to the effect
that it had signed a deal or made a firm commitment to do so, the
$3-23 billion estimated cost of purchasing offshore credits between
now and 2030 could start appearing as liability on the government's
books."
So, if they take even baby steps towards meeting our obligations, then
that's the "demonstration of intent" to meet the NDC that Treasury has
been refusing to recognise, the entire obligation becomes real in
accounting terms, and the government gets hit with a $23 billion
future liability. Normal people might think that recognising an actual
obligation is good, and that including the cost also reifies the cost
of inaction and so incentivises fixing it. But all the government sees
is "books look bad; bad headline". And so we have a perverse
incentive: only by denying the problem and refusing to do anything
about it can the illusion of fiscal probity be maintained.
It would be nice to have actual adults running climate policy. But
that's not going to happen until we throw out this government and get
a new one."
This thread is not about competitiveness it is about health and safety - please
try to keep up.
So in relation to health and safety, Gordon identified a particular
component of some solar panels (which is also used in some consumer
products) that may be harmful - do you believe anything should be done
about that, Tony?
My orginal posting was to point out that PFAS are substances which are used >in solar panels and the PFAS are not environmentally friendly. So why do the >people think that adding more from the proposed square km of solar panels is >better that the amounts of PFAS in the environment.
The ban needs to be a global effort in order to be effective which will >require political will.
On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 22:28:54 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>You handle Rich's insulting and childish garbage very differently to me, and I admire your fortitude. However, at the end of the day he is an awful human being that is seriously damaged. His first attempt is usually to reason to a very limited degree but as soon as he realised he is outclassed (and he always is) he simply becomes a revolting little troll.
wrote:
On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 20:45:21 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 16:16:23 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:so it is not the concept of banning PFAs that disturbs, you,
On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 17:22:48 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:
On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 15:02:39 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:
On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 10:43:08 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:
On 25 Dec 2024 06:54:30 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
https://chemsec.org/pfas-waste-from-solar-panels-this-is-something-that-people-in-the-sector-dont-like-to-talk-about/
Here is an interesting site. Have a look around.
It looks like these nasty chemicals are being used for solar panels, >>>>>>>>frying
pans and Li-ion batteries and PPE when there is and alternative which >>>>>>>>is the
same cost.
Why are the people allowing the PFAS to be used?
On a related matter the amount of ground contaminated from the solar >>>>>>>>cells
is at the very least going to be a huge headach in the future. Radio >>>>>>>>active
material will be in second place as all this green, clean energy, >>>>>>>>splits out
the PFAS waste which the industry has no idea how to deal with it. >>>>>>>>
Another one of the EV, green energy's dirty little secrect.
The idea is building the PFAS should be out lawed. Let us hope this idea
powers up fast.
The ultimate answer is for governments of large-population countries >>>>>>>to adopt measures that require producers of products to have to report >>>>>>>on how a product is manufactured, used and disposed of Said >>>>>>>manufacturers should be held responsible for any toxic consequences, >>>>>>>including safe manufacturing and disposal.
If large-population governments take this action the manufacturer may >>>>>>>well adopt measures that are available world-wide. In NZ, for >>>>>>>example, exporting manufacturers may well adopt such measures in order >>>>>>>to access markets that require these measures.
The concern in France is from manufacturers worried about a reduction >>>>>>in competitiveness - it is one of the reasons why such measures are >>>>>>often agreed at an international level. A high level of manufacturing >>>>>>may well correlate with high manufacturing, but there may be relevant >>>>>>industries in smaller countries - or were you anticipating that New >>>>>>Zealand would seek to ignore constraints, just as we appear to be >>>>>>ignoring some climate-change commitments?
What has any of this got to do with Gordon's OP? The only issue here >>>>>is that products whose use avoids pollution is very pollutant when it >>>>>is manufactured, then reaches the end of its operational life. No >>>>>connection with any particular country or manufacturer.
It relates to pfas - see the links below the article above, but sorry
I should have posted the following link from there which talks about >>>>the problems of trying to ban pfas in appliances. >>>>https://chemsec.org/what-a-load-of-crepe-why-industry-wants-to-keep-pfas-in-your-kitchen/
If banning pfas is a good idea, why avoid it just because we are not a >>>>"large population" country?
Banning PFAs by small countries such as NZ is pointless and damages
our economic for no greater good.
You should learn to read and comprehend before you post such insulting
and dismissive drivel. I have never indicated I am disturbed and it
is arrogant of you to make such a statement about me.
but that
New Zealand should either lead or risk short term profit for doing
what is right - which large country do you think we should be
following before we make up our mind to do what is right?
I thought I made myself clear in previous posts. Read and comprehend >Gordon's original post, then read and comprehend my responses. Your >subsequent posts clearly indicate that you, at best, have not done so.
--
Crash McBash
On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 03:00:43 -0000 (UTC), TonyYes. Exactly, as I wrote, we are ignoring no climate change commitments. You have provided nothing to show we have.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 10:43:08 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:We are ignoring no climate change commitments. And you cannot show otherwise >>-
On 25 Dec 2024 06:54:30 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
https://chemsec.org/pfas-waste-from-solar-panels-this-is-something-that-people-in-the-sector-dont-like-to-talk-about/
Here is an interesting site. Have a look around.
It looks like these nasty chemicals are being used for solar panels, frying
pans and Li-ion batteries and PPE when there is and alternative which is >>>>>the
same cost.
Why are the people allowing the PFAS to be used?
On a related matter the amount of ground contaminated from the solar cells >>>>>is at the very least going to be a huge headach in the future. Radio active
material will be in second place as all this green, clean energy, splits >>>>>out
the PFAS waste which the industry has no idea how to deal with it.
Another one of the EV, green energy's dirty little secrect.
The idea is building the PFAS should be out lawed. Let us hope this idea >>>>>powers up fast.
The ultimate answer is for governments of large-population countries
to adopt measures that require producers of products to have to report >>>>on how a product is manufactured, used and disposed of Said >>>>manufacturers should be held responsible for any toxic consequences, >>>>including safe manufacturing and disposal.
If large-population governments take this action the manufacturer may >>>>well adopt measures that are available world-wide. In NZ, for
example, exporting manufacturers may well adopt such measures in order >>>>to access markets that require these measures.
The concern in France is from manufacturers worried about a reduction
in competitiveness - it is one of the reasons why such measures are
often agreed at an international level. A high level of manufacturing
may well correlate with high manufacturing, but there may be relevant >>>industries in smaller countries - or were you anticipating that New >>>Zealand would seek to ignore constraints, just as we appear to be >>>ignoring some climate-change commitments?
stop your lies.
Try: >https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/12/climate-change-perverse-incentive.html
"The government published its first Biennial Transparency Report under
the Paris Agreement yesterday, and the media has correctly noted that
it is missing any plan to actually meet our target. [link given to: >https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/537178/government-s-first-paris-agreement-report-fails-to-address-how-it-plans-to-hit-targets
] While it hypes domestic emissions reductions so far - which have
been good, but will likely get worse thanks to National - there's an
84 million ton gap between our expected emissions and our Paris NDC.
The report doesn't say how we're going to fill this, merely noting
that the government is "exploring options for international
cooperation".
Why so vague? And why haven't these "explorations" (which they've beenNone of your business and nothing I have commented about. Do try to keep on track.
doing for years) resulted in any agreements? Other countries have been >signing them, after all, and while the previous government was rightly
picky about whether foreign "credits" were real, I don't expect any
such pickiness from National. They'll happily accept cheap fraud, if
it means they get to tick the "target achieved" box, and dealing with
the consequences will be Somebody Else's Problem.
A possible answer may be buried near the bottom of that RNZ article:
"Also in the background, Treasury had advised Ministers Watts and
Nicola Willis that if the government made a statement to the effect
that it had signed a deal or made a firm commitment to do so, the
$3-23 billion estimated cost of purchasing offshore credits between
now and 2030 could start appearing as liability on the government's
books."
So, if they take even baby steps towards meeting our obligations, then
that's the "demonstration of intent" to meet the NDC that Treasury has
been refusing to recognise, the entire obligation becomes real in
accounting terms, and the government gets hit with a $23 billion
future liability. Normal people might think that recognising an actual >obligation is good, and that including the cost also reifies the cost
of inaction and so incentivises fixing it. But all the government sees
is "books look bad; bad headline". And so we have a perverse
incentive: only by denying the problem and refusing to do anything
about it can the illusion of fiscal probity be maintained.
It would be nice to have actual adults running climate policy. But
that's not going to happen until we throw out this government and get
a new one."
This thread is not about competitiveness it is about health and safety - >>please
try to keep up.
So in relation to health and safety, Gordon identified a particular
component of some solar panels (which is also used in some consumer
products) that may be harmful - do you believe anything should be done
about that, Tony?
On 27 Dec 2024 23:32:05 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:It may also be a nonsensical assessment, based on your inabiity to assess anything without bias.
On 2024-12-27, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 03:00:43 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 10:43:08 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:We are ignoring no climate change commitments. And you cannot show >>>>otherwise -
On 25 Dec 2024 06:54:30 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
https://chemsec.org/pfas-waste-from-solar-panels-this-is-something-that-people-in-the-sector-dont-like-to-talk-about/
Here is an interesting site. Have a look around.
It looks like these nasty chemicals are being used for solar panels, >>>>>>>frying
pans and Li-ion batteries and PPE when there is and alternative which is >>>>>>>the
same cost.
Why are the people allowing the PFAS to be used?
On a related matter the amount of ground contaminated from the solar >>>>>>>cells
is at the very least going to be a huge headach in the future. Radio >>>>>>>active
material will be in second place as all this green, clean energy, splits >>>>>>>out
the PFAS waste which the industry has no idea how to deal with it. >>>>>>>
Another one of the EV, green energy's dirty little secrect.
The idea is building the PFAS should be out lawed. Let us hope this idea >>>>>>>powers up fast.
The ultimate answer is for governments of large-population countries >>>>>>to adopt measures that require producers of products to have to report >>>>>>on how a product is manufactured, used and disposed of Said >>>>>>manufacturers should be held responsible for any toxic consequences, >>>>>>including safe manufacturing and disposal.
If large-population governments take this action the manufacturer may >>>>>>well adopt measures that are available world-wide. In NZ, for >>>>>>example, exporting manufacturers may well adopt such measures in order >>>>>>to access markets that require these measures.
The concern in France is from manufacturers worried about a reduction >>>>>in competitiveness - it is one of the reasons why such measures are >>>>>often agreed at an international level. A high level of manufacturing >>>>>may well correlate with high manufacturing, but there may be relevant >>>>>industries in smaller countries - or were you anticipating that New >>>>>Zealand would seek to ignore constraints, just as we appear to be >>>>>ignoring some climate-change commitments?
stop your lies.
Try:
"The government published its first Biennial Transparency Report underhttps://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/12/climate-change-perverse-incentive.html
the Paris Agreement yesterday, and the media has correctly noted that
it is missing any plan to actually meet our target. [link given to:
] While it hypes domestic emissions reductions so far - which havehttps://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/537178/government-s-first-paris-agreement-report-fails-to-address-how-it-plans-to-hit-targets
been good, but will likely get worse thanks to National - there's an
84 million ton gap between our expected emissions and our Paris NDC.
The report doesn't say how we're going to fill this, merely noting
that the government is "exploring options for international
cooperation".
Why so vague? And why haven't these "explorations" (which they've been
doing for years) resulted in any agreements? Other countries have been
signing them, after all, and while the previous government was rightly
picky about whether foreign "credits" were real, I don't expect any
such pickiness from National. They'll happily accept cheap fraud, if
it means they get to tick the "target achieved" box, and dealing with
the consequences will be Somebody Else's Problem.
A possible answer may be buried near the bottom of that RNZ article:
"Also in the background, Treasury had advised Ministers Watts and
Nicola Willis that if the government made a statement to the effect
that it had signed a deal or made a firm commitment to do so, the
$3-23 billion estimated cost of purchasing offshore credits between
now and 2030 could start appearing as liability on the government's
books."
So, if they take even baby steps towards meeting our obligations, then
that's the "demonstration of intent" to meet the NDC that Treasury has
been refusing to recognise, the entire obligation becomes real in
accounting terms, and the government gets hit with a $23 billion
future liability. Normal people might think that recognising an actual
obligation is good, and that including the cost also reifies the cost
of inaction and so incentivises fixing it. But all the government sees
is "books look bad; bad headline". And so we have a perverse
incentive: only by denying the problem and refusing to do anything
about it can the illusion of fiscal probity be maintained.
It would be nice to have actual adults running climate policy. But
that's not going to happen until we throw out this government and get
a new one."
This thread is not about competitiveness it is about health and safety - >>>>please
try to keep up.
So in relation to health and safety, Gordon identified a particular
component of some solar panels (which is also used in some consumer
products) that may be harmful - do you believe anything should be done
about that, Tony?
My orginal posting was to point out that PFAS are substances which are used >>in solar panels and the PFAS are not environmentally friendly. So why do the >>people think that adding more from the proposed square km of solar panels is >>better that the amounts of PFAS in the environment.
The ban needs to be a global effort in order to be effective which will >>require political will.
I agree, which is why I queried the suggestion from Crash that it be
left to high population countries - while he did not respond it may be
a realistic assessment that the current NZ government will not be at
all interested in being involved in any actions relating to these
issues.
On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 06:46:41 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 22:28:54 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 20:45:21 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 16:16:23 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:so it is not the concept of banning PFAs that disturbs, you, but that
On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 17:22:48 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:
On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 15:02:39 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:
On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 10:43:08 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>wrote:
On 25 Dec 2024 06:54:30 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>https://chemsec.org/pfas-waste-from-solar-panels-this-is-something-that-people-in-the-sector-dont-like-to-talk-about/
Here is an interesting site. Have a look around.
It looks like these nasty chemicals are being used for solar panels, frying
pans and Li-ion batteries and PPE when there is and alternative which is the
same cost.
Why are the people allowing the PFAS to be used?
On a related matter the amount of ground contaminated from the solar cells
is at the very least going to be a huge headach in the future. Radio active
material will be in second place as all this green, clean energy, splits out
the PFAS waste which the industry has no idea how to deal with it. >>>>>>>>>
Another one of the EV, green energy's dirty little secrect.
The idea is building the PFAS should be out lawed. Let us hope this idea
powers up fast.
The ultimate answer is for governments of large-population countries >>>>>>>>to adopt measures that require producers of products to have to report >>>>>>>>on how a product is manufactured, used and disposed of Said >>>>>>>>manufacturers should be held responsible for any toxic consequences, >>>>>>>>including safe manufacturing and disposal.
If large-population governments take this action the manufacturer may >>>>>>>>well adopt measures that are available world-wide. In NZ, for >>>>>>>>example, exporting manufacturers may well adopt such measures in order >>>>>>>>to access markets that require these measures.
The concern in France is from manufacturers worried about a reduction >>>>>>>in competitiveness - it is one of the reasons why such measures are >>>>>>>often agreed at an international level. A high level of manufacturing >>>>>>>may well correlate with high manufacturing, but there may be relevant >>>>>>>industries in smaller countries - or were you anticipating that New >>>>>>>Zealand would seek to ignore constraints, just as we appear to be >>>>>>>ignoring some climate-change commitments?
What has any of this got to do with Gordon's OP? The only issue here >>>>>>is that products whose use avoids pollution is very pollutant when it >>>>>>is manufactured, then reaches the end of its operational life. No >>>>>>connection with any particular country or manufacturer.
It relates to pfas - see the links below the article above, but sorry >>>>>I should have posted the following link from there which talks about >>>>>the problems of trying to ban pfas in appliances. >>>>>https://chemsec.org/what-a-load-of-crepe-why-industry-wants-to-keep-pfas-in-your-kitchen/
If banning pfas is a good idea, why avoid it just because we are not a >>>>>"large population" country?
Banning PFAs by small countries such as NZ is pointless and damages
our economic for no greater good.
New Zealand should either lead or risk short term profit for doing
what is right - which large country do you think we should be
following before we make up our mind to do what is right?
Ban, tax, regulate.
Are they the only spanners in your favourite politician's toolbox?
How about leaving people the hell alone and the politicians mind their
own business?
Have you ever thought of that?
Bill.
I'll leave that one to Gordon - he wants those who are currently
profiting from using PFA's, but ask yourself what laws you think are
OK, Bill - what is politicians business if it is not to set laws?
And what would life be like without laws?
So which laws are OK with you, Bill?
On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 09:34:06 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>- as Christopher Luxon has demonstrated - reducing taxes on capital
wrote:
On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 06:46:41 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 22:28:54 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 20:45:21 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:
On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 16:16:23 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:so it is not the concept of banning PFAs that disturbs, you, but that >>>>New Zealand should either lead or risk short term profit for doing
On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 17:22:48 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:
On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 15:02:39 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:
On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 10:43:08 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>wrote:
On 25 Dec 2024 06:54:30 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>https://chemsec.org/pfas-waste-from-solar-panels-this-is-something-that-people-in-the-sector-dont-like-to-talk-about/
Here is an interesting site. Have a look around.
It looks like these nasty chemicals are being used for solar panels, frying
pans and Li-ion batteries and PPE when there is and alternative which is the
same cost.
Why are the people allowing the PFAS to be used?
On a related matter the amount of ground contaminated from the solar cells
is at the very least going to be a huge headach in the future. Radio active
material will be in second place as all this green, clean energy, splits out
the PFAS waste which the industry has no idea how to deal with it. >>>>>>>>>>
Another one of the EV, green energy's dirty little secrect. >>>>>>>>>>
The idea is building the PFAS should be out lawed. Let us hope this idea
powers up fast.
The ultimate answer is for governments of large-population countries >>>>>>>>>to adopt measures that require producers of products to have to report >>>>>>>>>on how a product is manufactured, used and disposed of Said >>>>>>>>>manufacturers should be held responsible for any toxic consequences, >>>>>>>>>including safe manufacturing and disposal.
If large-population governments take this action the manufacturer may >>>>>>>>>well adopt measures that are available world-wide. In NZ, for >>>>>>>>>example, exporting manufacturers may well adopt such measures in order >>>>>>>>>to access markets that require these measures.
The concern in France is from manufacturers worried about a reduction >>>>>>>>in competitiveness - it is one of the reasons why such measures are >>>>>>>>often agreed at an international level. A high level of manufacturing >>>>>>>>may well correlate with high manufacturing, but there may be relevant >>>>>>>>industries in smaller countries - or were you anticipating that New >>>>>>>>Zealand would seek to ignore constraints, just as we appear to be >>>>>>>>ignoring some climate-change commitments?
What has any of this got to do with Gordon's OP? The only issue here >>>>>>>is that products whose use avoids pollution is very pollutant when it >>>>>>>is manufactured, then reaches the end of its operational life. No >>>>>>>connection with any particular country or manufacturer.
It relates to pfas - see the links below the article above, but sorry >>>>>>I should have posted the following link from there which talks about >>>>>>the problems of trying to ban pfas in appliances. >>>>>>https://chemsec.org/what-a-load-of-crepe-why-industry-wants-to-keep-pfas-in-your-kitchen/
If banning pfas is a good idea, why avoid it just because we are not a >>>>>>"large population" country?
Banning PFAs by small countries such as NZ is pointless and damages >>>>>our economic for no greater good.
what is right - which large country do you think we should be
following before we make up our mind to do what is right?
Ban, tax, regulate.
Are they the only spanners in your favourite politician's toolbox? Apparently they are - taxes have of course been reduced for landlords
How about leaving people the hell alone and the politicians mind their >>>own business?
Have you ever thought of that?
Bill.
I'll leave that one to Gordon - he wants those who are currently
profiting from using PFA's, but ask yourself what laws you think are
OK, Bill - what is politicians business if it is not to set laws?
Politicians make laws but seldom do they repeal laws. How about
repealing some of the obstructive and unnecessary laws of which there
are many? Unnecessary laws are obstructive and expensive to enforce.
Laws that can be changed to be pleasing to the ACT Party without goingAnd what would life be like without laws?
That's a stupid question. Nobody in their right mind would advocate
for no laws.
Do you include rights under contract between the government and otherSo which laws are OK with you, Bill?
Laws that protect individual freedom and property rights.
Bill.
On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 06:57:53 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:You are a liar. That is absolutely incorrect and deliberately so.
On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 09:34:06 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:- as Christopher Luxon has demonstrated - reducing taxes on capital
On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 06:46:41 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 22:28:54 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 20:45:21 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:
On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 16:16:23 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:so it is not the concept of banning PFAs that disturbs, you, but that >>>>>New Zealand should either lead or risk short term profit for doing >>>>>what is right - which large country do you think we should be >>>>>following before we make up our mind to do what is right?
On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 17:22:48 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>wrote:
On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 15:02:39 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>wrote:
On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 10:43:08 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>>wrote:
On 25 Dec 2024 06:54:30 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>https://chemsec.org/pfas-waste-from-solar-panels-this-is-something-that-people-in-the-sector-dont-like-to-talk-about/
Here is an interesting site. Have a look around.
It looks like these nasty chemicals are being used for solar panels, >>>>>>>>>>>frying
pans and Li-ion batteries and PPE when there is and alternative >>>>>>>>>>>which is the
same cost.
Why are the people allowing the PFAS to be used?
On a related matter the amount of ground contaminated from the solar >>>>>>>>>>>cells
is at the very least going to be a huge headach in the future. Radio >>>>>>>>>>>active
material will be in second place as all this green, clean energy, >>>>>>>>>>>splits out
the PFAS waste which the industry has no idea how to deal with it. >>>>>>>>>>>
Another one of the EV, green energy's dirty little secrect. >>>>>>>>>>>
The idea is building the PFAS should be out lawed. Let us hope this >>>>>>>>>>>idea
powers up fast.
The ultimate answer is for governments of large-population countries >>>>>>>>>>to adopt measures that require producers of products to have to report
on how a product is manufactured, used and disposed of Said >>>>>>>>>>manufacturers should be held responsible for any toxic consequences, >>>>>>>>>>including safe manufacturing and disposal.
If large-population governments take this action the manufacturer may >>>>>>>>>>well adopt measures that are available world-wide. In NZ, for >>>>>>>>>>example, exporting manufacturers may well adopt such measures in order
to access markets that require these measures.
The concern in France is from manufacturers worried about a reduction >>>>>>>>>in competitiveness - it is one of the reasons why such measures are >>>>>>>>>often agreed at an international level. A high level of manufacturing >>>>>>>>>may well correlate with high manufacturing, but there may be relevant >>>>>>>>>industries in smaller countries - or were you anticipating that New >>>>>>>>>Zealand would seek to ignore constraints, just as we appear to be >>>>>>>>>ignoring some climate-change commitments?
What has any of this got to do with Gordon's OP? The only issue here >>>>>>>>is that products whose use avoids pollution is very pollutant when it >>>>>>>>is manufactured, then reaches the end of its operational life. No >>>>>>>>connection with any particular country or manufacturer.
It relates to pfas - see the links below the article above, but sorry >>>>>>>I should have posted the following link from there which talks about >>>>>>>the problems of trying to ban pfas in appliances. >>>>>>>https://chemsec.org/what-a-load-of-crepe-why-industry-wants-to-keep-pfas-in-your-kitchen/
If banning pfas is a good idea, why avoid it just because we are not a >>>>>>>"large population" country?
Banning PFAs by small countries such as NZ is pointless and damages >>>>>>our economic for no greater good.
Ban, tax, regulate.
Are they the only spanners in your favourite politician's toolbox? >Apparently they are - taxes have of course been reduced for landlords
gains from property sales, but strangely not for realised gains on
other investments - then there are the increases in taxes for road
users - Road user charge increases will increase transport costs which
will increase prices for most goods; and then there are planned
increased taxes for toll roads. Costs for public transport are rising,
and prescriptions charge exemptions taken away. Then there are rates -
due to actions of central government, most Councils have increased
rates by up to 16% - eating up most of the reductions in income tax
for about half the population (the poorer half of course). So yes you
are correct - this government is favouring its wealthy supporters
through taxes, and penalising the rest what other spanners are
ACT1stNat using? - oh of course, they are cutting employment so that >hospitals cannot provide some services, etc - and lots of businesses
are closing as demand for their services reduces - been to a
restaurant recently?
How about leaving people the hell alone and the politicians mind their >>>>own business?
Have you ever thought of that?
Bill.
I'll leave that one to Gordon - he wants those who are currently >>>profiting from using PFA's, but ask yourself what laws you think are
OK, Bill - what is politicians business if it is not to set laws?
Politicians make laws but seldom do they repeal laws. How about
repealing some of the obstructive and unnecessary laws of which there
are many? Unnecessary laws are obstructive and expensive to enforce.
The current ACT1stNat government could do that, but they dont want to
put those changes through parliament, and have someone call them on
what they want to do - instead they are wanting to put in vague
principles and then make changes that can only be reviewed by a
committee of un-elected people that they select. It has for a long
time been custom for determining whether the law is being correctly >interpreted to be able to be appealed to the Court system - that is
being thrown out in favour of a bunch of ACT cronies . . .
Laws that can be changed to be pleasing to the ACT Party without going >through parliament is exactly what is planned - so you think that
And what would life be like without laws?
That's a stupid question. Nobody in their right mind would advocate
for no laws.
ACT1stNat are not in their right mind? - you may well be correct.
Do you include rights under contract between the government and otherSo which laws are OK with you, Bill?
Laws that protect individual freedom and property rights.
Bill.
parties in that, Bill? The changes Seymour is trying to push through
would break terms of some of those contracts without reference to
parliament - are you happy with that?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 497 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 65:45:58 |
| Calls: | 9,766 |
| Calls today: | 7 |
| Files: | 13,745 |
| Messages: | 6,185,883 |