By Dan Romito
California’s ambitious renewable energy goals are often lauded as a model for sustainability, but when analyzed objectively, they are littered with ethical implications and a complete lack of capital discipline.
Worse, they are explicitly intended to please the state’s elite at the expense of the working class, who can least afford to bear the brunt of these misguided policies.
Even though California’s share of global emissions is less than 1%, its government maintains a fanatical focus on combating climate change and does not weigh the externalities or resulting ripple effects of its actions.
Consequently, the state's policies inadvertently support human rights violations and environmentally harmful practices by relying on Chinese-manufactured solar panels, wind turbines, and foreign oil.
Ambitious folly
As of January 1, 2020, California’s Title 24 Solar Mandate requires all new residential buildings up to three stories to include solar panels. Additionally, the state has set an ambitious target of 60% of its electricity coming from renewable sources by 2030. While these policies are designed to promote clean energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, their implementation has created a dependency on solar panels and wind turbines manufactured mainly in or relying on the Chinese supply chain.
China dominates the global market for renewable energy components. Approximately 80% of the world’s photovoltaic (PV) panels and 97% of silicon wafers – a critical component in solar panel production – are manufactured in China. California's dependency on Chinese-manufactured goods raises serious ethical and environmental concerns.
Shocking complicity
One of the most pressing issues is the use of forced labor in producing renewable energy components. Reports suggest that forced labor is prevalent in certain regions of China, particularly in industries linked to rare earth mineral extraction and silicon wafer production. These practices violate fundamental human rights and undermine the ethical foundations of California’s renewable energy initiatives.
In addition to forced labor concerns, China’s lack of stringent health and safety standards further compounds the problem. Workers involved in rare earth mineral extraction and solar panel manufacturing often face hazardous conditions without adequate protections. These practices jeopardize worker safety and contradict the ethical principles that California purports to uphold.
Another critical issue is the environmental impact of China’s rare earth mineral extraction. The extraction and processing of these minerals are notoriously damaging to the environment, involving toxic chemicals and generating significant amounts of waste. These activities often occur in areas with lax environmental regulations, leading to severe land degradation, water pollution, and harm to local communities. California’s reliance on components sourced from these practices undermines its environmental goals by contributing to ecological harm abroad.
A remedy is possible
The ethical and environmental costs of California’s renewable energy policies highlight a critical contradiction. While the state champions sustainability and climate action, it simultaneously supports supply chains linked to human rights abuses and environmental degradation.
This reliance poses a moral dilemma and calls into question the true cost of California’s “clean” energy transition. Unfortunately, California’s hypocrisy is not limited to renewables. Approximately 76% of the state’s crude oil is imported, with Iraq accounting for nearly a quarter of imports.
California must take a more holistic approach to its renewable energy policies to address these issues.
The state should remain intellectually honest about its selected energy mix, prioritize transparency in supply chains and collaborate with international partners to enforce ethical and sustainable practices globally.
In the meantime, the state’s hypocrisy, incompetence and elitism will remain on full display for anyone who can bear to look.
Dan Romito is managing director overseeing the Consulting & Advocacy practice at Pickering Energy Partners. He previously worked at Nasdaq, and his writing has been published in Harvard Business Review, Bloomberg and CNBC.
*The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of EnergyPlatform.News.