> Would you do a rough energy life cycle (back of envelope) on the energy expenditures of a shipping tanker full of solar PV cells This has been done already h

> Would you do a rough energy life cycle (back of envelope) on the energy expenditures of a shipping tanker full of solar PV cells This has been done already here in Central Europe and for the CO2 emissions alone, PV panels from China are worse than local hydro plants (~50g vs. ~20g CO2/KWh over their lifespan including production). Naturally, adding the other pollution caused by shipping makes it even less attractive. > I think non-CO2 shipping pollution tends to pulled out a distraction device in these discussions, though I don't think that's why you're bringing it up. On the contrary, it's grossly neglected and many of the direct negative effects of human actions on the environment we've seen in the past decades are from other causes than warming/CO2. CO2 gets so much attention because it's also a convenient way for many industries to distract from their impact on the environment. You can poison the water and soil or bury even nuclear waste underground, but as long as you buy some CO2 certificates, you're good.