The Not So Green Costs of a Green Economy

ABSTRACT

While the use of solar panels and clean energy technologies as a whole is a step in the right direction, great care must be taken regarding each stage of a solar panel’s life cycle to ensure that the environment and different communities worldwide are not negatively affected. Our paper provides a holistic yet concise overview of each stage and its impacts concerning environmental injustices. We achieve this by analyzing primary sources and prior pieces of literature that focus on certain parts of our topic. Examples include letters from citizens to high-ranking officials in their town which stress the worry that they have in regards to solar panel disposal, case studies that detail the harsh lives farmers in India have to live when their land is taken away for the creation of solar farms, and papers that focus on how clean energy perpetuates “winners” and “losers” in society due to accessibility issues. In doing so, the implications of a complete transition to clean energy technologies become apparent, and those who face the brunt of these issues will be more prepared and aware of the damage caused by solar panel production, use, and disposal. Additionally, by creating a comprehensive overview of a solar panel’s life cycle and connections to the issues perpetuated by each stage, we lay the groundwork for future research. We also indicate that solar companies and policymakers must take action sooner rather than later. 

I. INTRODUCTION

The transition from more conventional forms of energy into cleaner ones is a topic of great discussion today. Although the benefits of clean energy technologies are almost always the main focus of the general public, what is left behind are the hidden costs that come along with these positives. Solar panels, for instance, are at the forefront of the movement for a clean energy transition. Most believe that solar panels are a tool to use for the future, often becoming tunnel-visioned on the idea of dropping all other forms of energy in favor of them. However, the main issue with this thought process is that significant issues are being overlooked. While the use of solar panels does indeed have positive trade-offs, our goal is to identify and analyze the negative impacts associated with solar panels, both on the environment and society as a whole. We do this by employing a life cycle analysis of solar panels, from sourcing the materials to their use and eventual disposal. At each stage of the life cycle, we also seek to answer how that stage impacts the environment and how different people are impacted differently. In many academic discussions revolving around the cost-benefit analysis of solar panels, minorities and underprivileged groups have been left out of the literature. We seek to include their stories and add an environmental justice perspective to the discussion about solar panels. Overall, this study enhances people’s understanding of the costs of solar panels in their entire life cycle and discusses how the negative impacts unequally affect groups and individuals. Our research allows policymakers and solar panel companies to understand the environmental damage and social inequality that solar panels can potentially bring to society. Through our analysis of the negative impacts, the policymakers and solar panel manufacturers can be more effective in adjusting both the solar panel policies and products to be more beneficial to the environment and bring less unequal damage towards certain groups of people. Our analysis also informs the groups and individuals under potential threat of the damage caused by the production, use, and recycling of solar panels, giving them more information on what they are facing, subsequently allowing them to protect themselves from potential harm. Additionally, our holistic review of the life cycle of solar panels establishes a framework for the analysis of the negative impacts of each stage. Future researchers can build on top of our framework and study one specific aspect in the life cycle of solar panels, enriching our understanding to a further level. 

II. BACKGROUND

Production 

This section discusses the production of solar panels and how it negatively affects the environment and contributes to environmental racism, mainly through the lens of the pollution caused by mining the materials needed for the production and the toxic emission during the production. The nonprofit organization that focuses on the impacts of high-tech industries, Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, creates a scoreboard that tracks the environmental damage of solar panel manufacturers. The score board “looks at such things as emissions, chemical toxicity, water use, and recycling” [1]. They express their concern over the pollution created by the solar panel companies and strive to rank the companies in terms of their environmental impact. Their results show that manufacturers in China, for example, leave a significantly higher carbon footprint than those in the United States, where there are more strict federal and state laws. 

The first big concern over the negative environmental impact of manufacturing solar panels comes from the various toxic wastes and pollutants during the manufacturing process. The wastes include liquid silicon tetrachloride, which is a byproduct of the production of polysilicon, hydrofluoric acid, an extremely hazardous chemical, sodium hydroxides, silicon particles, and much more [2]. The solar panel industry has developed more and more advanced technologies and methods to process these toxic byproducts and set up new rules for manufacturers to follow. However, many solar panel companies, especially those in developing countries, struggle to follow these regulations and refuse to use the more advanced and more expensive technologies. 

In 2011, a solar panel factory in Zhejiang Province, China was reported to have excessively discharged toxic wastes into the environment and have caused many residents to get diseases. The factory was reported to have excessively emitted silicon tetrachloride into the river, as later tests of the water from the river showed that the fluoride product in the water was 10 times over the limit. The factory later said that the excessive emission was because of the incorrect positioning of the fluoride wastes, and the rain flushed the toxic waste into the drain, and later into the river. As the solid silicon tetrachloride met water, it also produced the hazardous hydrofluoric acid as a byproduct. This extensive pollution of the local river caused huge damage to the local farmlands and people. It was reported that 31 people got cancer and 6 people have been diagnosed with leukemia because of pollution [3]. It is heartbreaking to see how the technology and products that are supposed to benefit the environment and people result in huge damage to the environment and residents only because of a minor mistake in the positioning of the waste. As the people and places that can afford solar panels enjoy the benefits it brings to them, residents near the factories of solar panels and the surroundings of those factories are facing serious potential harms resulting from the production of solar panels. This unequal treatment of green technologies results in environmental racism that we never expect, and would never wish for. 

Another case was in 2015 when a solar panel factory was built in Fujian Province, China, and more than a thousand residents protested against the manufacturer regarding the potential pollution the factory would bring to the local area. In addition to the general impacts of these resource-intensive factories like surface water pollution, groundwater pollution, and waste overflow, the residents presented a lot more concerns about the environmental impacts the factory would bring. The water pollution caused by the waste during production would harm the water body that it passes through, and inevitably damage the land, causing soil contamination and crop damage. The decreasing water quality would also lead to the loss of biodiversity in the water body and the surroundings that the water passes through. In addition to environmental damage, the residents also raised several health concerns, including exposure to radiation and polluted air, mental problems such as stress, depression, and even suicide. However, even under such protests, the local authorities did not respond to these concerns over environmental issues and health impacts, and the factory eventually started their operations [4]. 

In addition to pollution and emissions during the production, the mining of materials for the production of solar panels is also a main environmental risk. Like other high-tech and resource-intensive products, solar panels require a wide variety of materials, including a collection of rare earth materials. Mining these rare earth materials almost always results in huge damage to the local environment and the health of the workers in the mines [5]. Making matters worse, the mining of rare earth materials is concentrated in only selected areas in the world, especially in China. Studies show that China is responsible for producing nearly 90% of the rare earth metals in the world, and the mining and processing industries have devastated the environment in China. Mining these materials is very environmentally concerning because it often involves injecting hazardous chemicals into the land to extract the rare metals. A news article mentions that the extraction of rare earth metals “involves removing the topsoil, transporting it to a leaching pond, and adding chemicals (such as ammonium sulfate and ammonium chloride) to separate out the metals.” These chemicals can be extremely hazardous to the environment, leading to “air pollution, cause erosion, and leach into groundwater.” The surrounding environment of the mines is substantially damaged, inhospitable to people, and unable to be used as farmlands. The leaching of chemicals into groundwater would also harm places far beyond the immediate surroundings of the mines. However, the attempts to clean up the pollution of the mines proved to be exceedingly expensive and time-consuming [6]. These facts all contribute to the fact that the production of solar panels leads to great damage to the environment and local people. Although the groups who can afford solar panels would hardly notice these facts and would enjoy the benefits of solar energy, the people and the surroundings near the solar industry are forced to carry the burden for them. 

Use

This section discusses the current situation regarding the use of solar energy and its impacts through an environmental justice lens, focusing on indigenous peoples and land use. The Business & Human Rights Resource Centre conducted a benchmark test of the largest 16 renewable energy companies globally and found that the average score of all 16 was 22% [7]. The score was calculated with several themes, including “Indigenous Peoples’ and Affected Communities’ Rights,” of which only 1 of the 16 companies had commitments towards, “land rights” of which none had commitments, and “Human Rights” of which none had commitments either [8]. This lack of public commitment towards more just goals contrasts the 572 attacks on human rights that the organization documented, and attacks from the renewable energy industry were the 4th most common [9].

There is a big push for a transition to clean energy in Asia, and this push is the main focus of our discussions in this section. India is one of the largest greenhouse emitters in the world and has set ambitious goals of 100 GW from solar by 2022 [10]. These are noble goals, but it is vital to keep in mind the execution of these plans as well. The first case is that of a resilient group of Karbi and Adivasi farmers at Mikir Bamuni Grant village in Assam, fighting to keep their rightful land from Azure Power Forty Private Limited. This legal battle has continued since March of 2020, and more recently, the Guwahati High Court ordered status quo on the land. The legalities aside, this example shows a gross mischaracterization and evaluation of land. The land was reclassified from “agricultural” to “industrial” because of the Assam Land Revenue Reassessment Act in 1936. The reasoning was that the land had not been under “agricultural use for the last 10 years and at present, the land is not fit for growing any profitable crops.” However, the 2011 census showed that some 92 of the 126 hectares of land were being used for agriculture purposes. In this case, it seems that the definition of “profitable crops” was too narrow and did not include the rice and vegetables that the villagers grew [11]. Several farmers were arrested during protests, and bulldozers carelessly ran over sections of the paddy fields, destroying their crops. If this land is to be converted to a solar plant, it would also damage the ecosystem, as the area is an elephant corridor [12].

Another example can be found at the Charanka solar park in Gujarat, India. Extensive interviews were conducted during a study in 2015 and revealed a disenfranchisement of the affected communities as they had little to no say in the project [13]. Many villagers were not even informed of the project; they only realized something was going on when the construction machinery arrived. One final example can be found in Rajasthan, where communities filed 15 cases in the area against solar plants only to have nine dismissed and two ignored because the plants were already built. There is a severe lack of attention to marginalized, indigenous communities that are powerless against these injustices. In one of the remaining cases, the court noted that “renewable energy is the mantra of the day because it is environmentally friendly” [14]. Historically, colonial powers have found ways to extract value from their colonies through exploitative practices. The French and British blamed the indigenous groups for destroying forests and creating deserts and used desiccation theory to justify the superiority of the colonial powers [15]. Although fighting climate change is critically important to every nation, it is no justification for this twisted take on internal colonialism. Legal battles are time and resource-consuming, and it should be in the country’s, company’s, and local community’s best interest for indigenous people’s rights to be respected.

There are, of course, two sides to this coin, and there are plenty of examples where indigenous peoples have thrived through the transition to solar. We turn our attention to Native Americans in North America for the conclusion of this section. Although there are cases of inconsiderate planning for solar farms, such as the planned solar plant in Livingston County over ancestral lands and burial sites of the Seneca Nation, many have taken the initiative in green energy transitions [16]. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North Dakota fought to stop oil pipelines crossing tribal lands and built solar farms to power their buildings. The Winnebago Tribe in Nebraska saves 47 thousand dollars each year because of its solar investments [17]. The Navajo president initiated large projects on 300 acres of land, which now delivers energy to several states, including California and New Mexico [18]. This list goes on, continuing to Canada, where the Minister of Natural Resources announced a $4.5-million project, partnered with three local Indigenous groups, at Fort Chipewyan, Alberta [19]. Many countries are stepping up their transitions to a greener economy, and through proper policies, everyone will be included. 

Disposal 

As the topics of solar panel production and use have already been explored, this section identifies and discusses the issues regarding solar panel disposal in addition to how these issues negatively impact both society and the environment. Through certain events it’s quite clear that, while solar panels are commonly used across the globe, recycling efforts have been brushed aside and considered unimportant. 

In a statement made by the Japanese Environment Minister in November 2016, he listed that Japan’s solar panel waste would rise from around 10,000 tonnes to nearly 800,000 tonnes by the year 2040. Along with this, he explained that Japan had no concrete plan or efforts to dispose of these solar panels in a safe and efficient way [20]. This aligns with what’s been happening within African countries, as research engineer Dr. Mark Wynn mentioned how there had been little waste produced by solar panels within the two decades they had been installing them (this is because solar panels have a life expectancy of around 25 to 30 years), so no plans had been made in regards to managing all the waste that would eventually be produced [21]. The issue of proper solar panel disposal is one that’s extremely imminent and has the potential to be catastrophic, as the landfills that the waste will most likely be diverted to are already filled and have little to no room left.

Within Africa, the issue of solar panel disposal and recycling is one that is already leading to negative impacts on the environment and local communities. Accordingly, areas within Africa are the focus of our research in this section. One of the major issues within Africa when it comes to solar panel disposal is the pollution it causes to the environment. In a 2018 paper published in the Journal of Scientific Research and Reports, a study was performed from the months of March to June in 2012 on the Msimbazi River (located in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania). The study found that there had been great pollution and a heavy presence of metal within the surrounding soil and direct water source from batteries, steel, electrical products, and more. Additionally, the results of the study revealed that lead, copper, and chromium levels were found to be higher than acceptable levels [22]. This study is one example of the water pollution and environmental damage caused as a result of poor disposal of clean energy technologies, specifically solar panels. All 3 metals mentioned within the study are found within solar panels and are very prevalent in many different builds. 

Furthermore, seeing as there are such high and dangerous levels of pollution within this river means that there is a high chance of water pollution in other local sources of water as well. While this study shows some of the environmental costs of solar panels and clean energy disposal, it also reveals some of the damage caused on Tanzanian citizens in comparison to those who actually benefit from using solar panels in the first place. The implications caused by solar panel disposal and the clean energy transition as a whole is explainable through a 2020 research paper called, “The Justice and Equity Implications of the Clean Energy Transition,” authored by both Sanya Carley and David M. Konisky. Here, there is a great focus placed on the unfair consequences that low-income communities and certain minorities face in comparison to others. Specifically, the authors bring up how communities that live near clean energy landfills will suffer from air and water pollution, exposure to toxic chemicals, and more [23]. This relates back to the situation that the Tanzanian people are placed in due to solar panel disposal and a lack of recycling processes being developed for clean energy technologies. While those living in America, Japan, Germany, and other developed countries benefit from the use of clean energy and solar panels, the ones living in the countries where the waste produced by these solar panels are suffering. 

This is mainly because, as mentioned earlier, the process of solar panel recycling is underdeveloped and costly. In turn, it’s generally seen as more convenient to transport the waste produced by solar panels to third world countries, poorer communities, and other vulnerable areas. This is a major issue, not only because of the possible pollution and poisoning it can cause within water sources as described earlier, but because of the actual side effects that these consequences cause. Lead, in specific, causes delays in development and can be fatal at times, copper can cause fever-like symptoms, and chromium is a toxic hazard for many major organs within the body [24]. As the citizens who live near to the solar panel disposal sites likely have their groundwater filled with these contaminants, they will face both the short-term and long-term consequences of solar panel disposal. 

Another serious case of solar panel disposal causing issues is in India. A 2019 report conducted by Bridge to India projected that the solar photovoltaic panel waste would increase to 200,000 tonnes in 2030 and 1.8 million tonnes in 2050 [25]. With an ever increasing push for solar energy usage, these estimates are sure to rise even further than the point they’re already at. However, while the waste continues to increase, there are still no actions being taken to prevent the negative consequences caused by it. No rules or regulations are in place for solar companies nor the government to follow, meaning that they can dump solar waste wherever they please. As a result, solar waste is being dumped in poorer communities and underdeveloped regions within India, leading to aforementioned issues such as lead pollution as well as environmental damage and the loss of biodiversity.

As a whole, each stage within the life cycle of a solar panel has certain consequences on both the environment and society as a whole. Multiple case studies from different countries and regions across the world confirm this, from water poisoning due to solar waste in Africa to land being destroyed, taken away, and industrialized for solar panel production and use in India. Through the previous case studies and analysis, we broaden the perspective on these issues and create a concise overview of certain issues present within each stage of a solar panel’s life cycle.

III. LITERATURE REVIEW

Colonialism

In the use section of the background above, we briefly mentioned the internal colonial themes running through implementing the green energy transition in India. Here, we situate our paper in the academic discussion revolving around the history of expertise in colonial situations before going further in-depth regarding previous literature surrounding the idea of development, the production, use, and disposal of solar panels, and environmental injustice in relation to the clean energy transition.

When states like Prussia and Saxony in the latter half of the 1700s first developed scientific forestry, states found that "a narrowing of vision" was required so that the matters at hand could be examined in sharper focus. The development and shortcomings of early scientific forestry, which would eventually become the foundation of forest management strategies of many western powers, were examined in great detail in James Scott's Seeing Like a State. In this work, Scott details the first attempts at scientific forestry where experts degraded entire forests down to only resources of value and factors that prevented value. Trees were no longer trees; instead, trees were "timber" and nothing else in this narrowed view. These efforts resulted in standardized forests where trees were grown in straight rows and columns with all non-essential life, such as shrubs and pests, forcibly removed. This crude simplification of what a forest is resulted in an increase in the production of timber. Since all elements of the first were under control, it also allowed for scientific experiments with entire sections of forests as experts could now vary one variable at a time. However, nature turned out to be way more complicated than these experts imagined. There was a sudden and drastic drop in productivity after the second cycle of trees as the oversimplification disrupted the ecosystem. The nutrients in the soil were drained, and it forced the creation of a virtual ecosystem by artificially introducing species of plants and animals. This example serves as a clear warning that our science might not be as complete as we think it is, a thought which applies very well to the problems we sweep under the rug when it comes to the clean energy transition. Later, when countries tried to map out farmland and standardize farming practices, the cadastral maps each state created were "very much like a still photograph of the current in a river," and the same oversimplification technique used might have worked for the officials but "was mystifying to most cultivators" [26]. We see the same mistake in India when farmland for local villages in Assam was reclassified because the narrow definition of "profitable crops" did not include the locals' vegetables and rice [27].

Pushing for a green energy transition is a great thing, and every country in the world should be doing so, but things that sound good do not always result in good outcomes. For this, we turn our attention to Egypt in the same time period, the second half of the 1700s, with Alan Mikhail's Under Osman's Tree: The Ottoman Empire, Egypt, and Environmental History. Traditionally, the labor involved to maintain and repair the irrigation system that ran through much of Egypt was sourced locally, and workers knew that their efforts helped themselves directly. However, as the Egyptian elites started larger projects, labor began to be sourced from far-away places. The local workers' "knowledge and experience of canals, embankments, and soils were deemed increasingly less important" as the expertise and control were centralized. Larger projects like Aswan High Dam came with an enormous "political, economic, human, and environmental price tag," including: "the destruction of much of historic Nubia, increased reliance on chemical fertilizers to overcome salinization, shrinkage of the Nile delta, overmining of the adjacent granite hills, and massive water losses due to evaporation from Lake Nasser" [28]. These infrastructure projects were a necessary part of maintaining the irrigation system that allowed farmers in Egypt to feed much of the Ottoman Empire but came at high costs partly because local expertise was not taken into account. In this sense, several of our case studies reflect this in today's push for a green energy transition. Going back to the villages in Assam, the officials either did not know or ignored the fact that the area was an elephant corridor and significant to the ecosystems there [29]. This serves as the colonial backdrop from where we expand to the development of colonial possessions and introduce solar panels into the current conversation. 

Development 

Extending from colonialism and changes implemented in colonies, we also discuss the academic view of the development projects pushed by the colonizers in postwar Africa. Many scholars have written books and articles on the ideologies behind the development projects, explaining how these projects eventually led to decolonization. 

In the article "Modernizing Bureaucrats, Backward Africans, and the Development Concept," Fredrick Cooper discusses the development projects implemented in postwar British Africa and French Africa by their colonizers. The idea of colonial development projects starts in an almost entirely fiscal lens, as the British and French colonizers seek to increase the productivity and economic outputs in their African colonies. They feel that due to their poor living conditions and few incentives to work, the colonial production was ineffective and the economic revenue from the colonies was insufficient. On the other hand, implementing social development projects with metropolitan funds would increase the productivity of the colonies and would eventually benefit the empire. They start the projects and begin to build infrastructures in the hope that the "modern infrastructure would integrate African communities into commerce without changing their nature." They felt that because the colonial people "were inferior in efficiency," they had to press these development projects into the colonies. They also hoped to impose European methods and social norms, such as the formation of a working class and labor unions, in the hope of increasing productivity. However, they face obstructions during these programs, as they fail to take into account the "complexity of African countryside and city" [30]. The local laborers started to go on strike and ask for better treatments like higher wages, the development projects were clogged, and the metropolitan funds from the empire were unable to be spent. Eventually, unable to reconcile the conflict, the colonizers were not able to get satisfactory results from the colonies as they were not getting increased economic income after spending the funds. This led to the ultimate result of moving the controlling power to local entities and the process of decolonization. In the case of British and French African colonies, the development projects were implemented only through a fiscal lens of the empires without any consideration of the local needs and conditions, and this led to an inevitable failure in the programs. 

When the British and French colonizers decide on their policies in their colonies, they often solely look through the fiscal lens. They only evaluate how economically beneficial the colonies are and determine their policies and projects only to improve their income. This narrow view can hardly succeed since it almost always ignores the actual needs and conditions of those who are going to be affected by the policies and projects, that is, the colonial people. They sought to use European ideology and methodology to solve colonial problems, which were destined to meet failure. Fredrick Cooper, an American historian who specializes in colonization, decolonization, and African history, expresses this idea in his article. He clearly shows how the difference in the expected needs of Africa determined by European colonists and the actual needs of the colonial people gives an unexpected result for the development program. Additionally, this ideology relates to our discussion of the impacts of solar panels. Entrepreneurs and politicians often view green energy in a fiscal way to formulate policies and products that are economically and environmentally beneficial. However, they ignore the impact of green energy on local groups of people and unintentionally force the burden onto them.

Production

In this section, we now analyze past literature on the impacts of solar panels with the start of the life cycle, specifically the production stage. The authors of the paper "Environmental impact of PV systems: effects of energy sources used in production of solar panels" focus on the environmental damage of the whole life cycle of different photovoltaic systems or different types of solar panels. The author group of this paper consists of several PV industry specialists from France, which means that the paper should be credible and professional. The authors hypothesize on the potential environmental impact of different types of photovoltaic technologies, different electricity production characteristics, and different transporting distances of the product to the final installation site. The authors strive to quantify the environmental impact of all these differences regarding the manufacturing of photovoltaic systems. Gathering data of specific power installation of different PV systems, they transferred these data into effective CO2 emission in grams per kilowatt of power produced. They conclude that the manufacturing of all PV systems has a high equivalent emission of CO2, which means having an impact on the environment, while different PV technologies and installations have different CO2 equivalent emissions. The paper provides a lot of detailed data on the impact of PV system installation and compares different PV technologies [31]. Combining this with data about the equivalent CO2 saving each solar panel can accomplish, we form an analysis on how the solar panel will affect the entire ecosystem and how it will differentially affect different groups of people. From here, we form conclusions regarding the environmental racism side of solar panels, namely how it negatively impacts the people and places during production and how it can positively impact the people and environment during use. However, this paper does not discuss the PV manufacturing industry as a whole and does not compare it to other types of energy generation methods such as thermal power generation or nuclear power generation. 

Use

This section reviews some of the past literature revolving around the use of solar panels and their impact on the environment. "Wildlife Conservation and Solar Energy Development in the Desert Southwest, United States" by Jeffrey Lovich and Joshua Ennen closely looks at every aspect of creating, running, and the eventual decommissioning of solar farms and their impacts on the environment and human health. After a thorough analysis of peer-reviewed data from various past papers, the authors conclude that solar energy is not a perfect source of green energy, and the future of renewable energy needs to be responsible. Here, the authors note the limitations of their paper as a lack of data that is currently available [32]. Another paper, "Environmental Impacts from the Installation and Operation of Large-Scale Solar Power Plants," by Damon Turney and Vasilis Fthenakis, discusses the impact on the land and the environment from solar farms relative to traditional energy sources like coal. It looks at the installation and operation of solar farms but not decommissioning. To quantify these farms' impact, they identify 32 different environmental impacts of solar farms and split them into categories such as emissions, land use, and wildlife. For each impact, they discuss its effects and compare them to coal-based energy sources. They conclude that although for many of the 32 impacts, solar panels are better, that does not mean we can be careless about employing such technologies. They also mention that we should always look for ways to optimize their performance and minimize their negative impacts [33]. This paper was limited by the lack of available data as 6 of 32 impacts were not fully discussed as they needed further research. From these and many other papers, we see a demand for more literature regarding the use of solar panels and their impact on the environment. Furthermore, through our research, we have found the discussion revolving around the social injustices perpetrated by the use of solar panels to be limited as well and in turn provide a bottom-up analysis of their impacts on communities through a heavier emphasis on primary sources. 

Disposal 

This section reviews past literature that dives into solar panel disposal, the lack of solar panel recycling, and the impact that these issues have in relation to the environment. One research paper and study that focuses on water pollution due to the poor disposal of technologies is called "Heavy Metal Pollution Assessment along Msimbazi River, Tanzania," by Ghanima Chanzi. This paper, as mentioned previously, provides a more statistical look at the water pollution caused by heavy metals being dumped into water as well as the impact toxic waste from batteries and other electrical products causes on the local environment. Additionally, the paper provides us with a piece of literature that focuses on one specific case study, here being the Msimbazi River in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. The sole author of this paper draws on previous research performed on the contaminated environment as well as their own research to determine just how impactful the pollution of heavy metals and other debris really is. After giving an overview of their method and detailing specific data regarding the level of pollution, the author concludes that there are high levels of water pollution as a result of the toxic waste and heavy metal disposal in developing countries such as Africa. Specifically, the author mentions how within both the Msimbazi River and surrounding soil, there were high levels of lead, chromium, and copper [34]. In fact, the levels determined were higher than allowed by organizations such as WHO, and the high concentration of such material within both the water and soil causes a variety of issues such as a lack of biodiversity due to living organisms consuming the harmful material and harm to locals through toxic waste contaminating groundwater and other sources of drinking water. 

As a whole, this research paper is both neutral and specific. The topic that it focuses on is extremely narrow and specific in its own right, and by focusing on a single case study, the paper ends up being even more niche. However, as a direct result of this, the paper is more persuasive and significant in comparison to similar forms of literature. Not only is statistical data analyzed to quantify the issue of the disposal of solar panels and other technologies, but there is also great emphasis placed on direct impacts these issues have on the environment and local communities. Additionally, the paper touches on points brought up in previous literature that relates to ideas of both societal development and colonialism. Specifically, this paper relates greatly to ideas mentioned and brought up in some of Fredrick Cooper and Randall Packard's sections within, International Development and the Social Sciences: Essays on the History and Politics of Knowledge. In one of Cooper's sections called, "Modernizing Bureaucrats, Backward Africans, and the Development Concept," he brings up points relating to the idea of a depoliticization of the relationship between the colonizers and the colonized. He describes how attempts were made to cool tensions and reduce prejudices; however, they still lingered even while being suppressed. Additionally, in Randall Packard's section called, "Visions of Postwar Health and Development and Their Impact on Public Health Interventions in the Developing World," he introduced the idea of developed countries to provide healthcare to developing countries in order to eventually have access to healthy and productive laborers, effectively taking advantage of them. At the same time, the citizens of these developed countries like America, for example, would stay without free healthcare, furthering the point that developed countries were trying to take advantage of others [35]. These ideas are paralleled within the topic of solar panel disposal and the paper mentioned previously, as while the citizens are the ones facing issues with disposal and are struggling, they are also the ones who are working to produce some of these clean energy technologies and support the more developed countries. Additionally, it was mentioned in the paper how developed countries had assessed these issues previously and suspected them to be true, indicating that they were aware of the problem and wanted it to be addressed in order to maximize the potential profits and production they could gain from healthy communities within Africa. This ties back into how once the laborers received certain benefits, they would be put to work and be productive for the economic boost that developed countries were looking for, suffering in the long run as one of their issues were solved, but a whole batch of new ones were created. So, this literature connects to those that focus on colonialism and how subjects were taken advantage of to be productive for their colonizers but still face the consequences of that productivity while the colonizers reaped most of the benefits.

 Now, while the topic does provide significant contributions to the discussion section of a solar panel's life cycle as well as how this ties into topics regarding colonialism, it fails to provide a holistic view on solar panels or how the production and use of solar panels ties into disposal in the first place. This shows to us that there needs to be more literature focusing on a holistic, all-encompassing review of both a solar panel's life cycle and how each issue within each stage has its own separate impacts on society and ties into the main idea of environmental racism.

Environmental Injustices From Clean Energy Transitions

Alongside previous articles that focus on the issues situated within each stage of a solar panel's life cycle, research has been conducted and papers have been written detailing the environmental injustices perpetuated by clean energy overall. This section focuses specifically on analyzing a source that focuses on this topic and if it touches on more in-depth issues. 

One such example is a paper called "The Justice and Equity Implications of the Clean Energy Transition," authored by Sanya Carley and David M. Konisky. This paper ties into both the general topic of clean energy and its potential consequences alongside the topic of how different forms of a solar panel's life cycle tie into these issues. As a quick overview, the two authors of this paper focus on the transition from traditional forms of energy into the aforementioned clean energy technologies, specifically through a comparative view between the winners and losers of such a scenario. The authors bring up points regarding how the transition would lead to unequal and unfair impacts on different groups of people, specifically those who live next to solar factories and disposal sites in comparison to the consumers living in developed countries and take advantage of the power they receive. Additionally, points are brought up to show how the winners almost entirely benefit from the transition to cleaner forms of energy while the losers lack access to these technologies and end up bearing the brunt of negative consequences. Further implications brought up regarding the clean energy transitions include a lack of commercial real estate and job opportunities for the less fortunate, as industries that rely on older forms of energy such as coal mining will shut down and leave entire communities both jobless and left with unwanted property near abandoned factories [36]. As a whole, this paper manages to cover a large variety of subtopics situated within the main topic of environmental injustice as well as the increasing use of clean energy technologies, from the loss of economic opportunities due to a changing landscape to the unfair consequences that certain groups of people face, and the environmental damage that disproportionately and unexpectedly impacts those who don’t even have access to clean energy technologies. The authors do so by reviewing a number of transition policies and programs while also staying quite broad in what they focus on and reference. At the same time, they manage to include information regarding solar panel access and labor associated with that, tying into previous research papers and articles that focus on different parts of a solar panel's life cycle. 

The only downsides of the paper are that it does not go too in-depth in terms of specific case studies to support their points surrounding environmental inequality and injustice, and the paper also fails to provide enough detailed evidence and information to make strong arguments about specific issues within each stage of a solar panel's life cycle. Rather than going into extreme detail, the paper frequently gives a brief description of subtopics. Also, in terms of what perspective and argument the paper makes, it is quite narrow-minded because they never focus on both sides of their topic. The paper is quite prejudicial in the sense that they maintain the point that there are always winners and losers from clean energy, never focusing on contrary viewpoints or the potential developments that can and have been made in countries that suffer from environmental injustices due to the implementation of different forms of clean energy. Still, the authors are quite persuasive in their arguments as they manage to focus on information that is both studied previously and has an emotional appeal, specifically in regards to how people from low-income communities suffer the most and see unfair consequences. Additionally, the authors' work serves as a transition into more detailed arguments in regards to specific forms of clean energy, giving it great significance in the case of our paper since we use it as a tool to further our own understanding and provide more specific examples of points previously brought up. 

From judging the usability of this paper as well as other sources quite similar to this one, it is evident that there needs to be more literature that includes both a holistic and specific description of a solar panel's life cycle with case studies provided as well as the environmental and social effects each stage perpetuates and causes. While this paper attempts to go into both environmental injustice and certain parts regarding solar panels, it is much too broad and never attempts to dive deeper into the topic. Additionally, the paper lacks an analysis of primary sources and how they specifically connect to the idea of environmental injustice, something that quite a lot of these papers lack actually. At the same time, however, the paper brings up points in relation to the power of experts as well as how the development and constant implementation of new technologies while thinking they are more beneficial and better causes large-scale issues due to being too focused and narrow-minded. This shows how this literature interacts with previous literature focusing on an oversimplification of the environment, specifically, Seeing Like a State by James Scott, as both pieces of literature have a similar viewpoint on how the narrow-minded implementation of new technologies without proper risk-assessment can lead to disastrous consequences [37].

In turn, these sources show that a discussion is available to relate environmental injustices and the influence of experts together, as their work to apply new forms of clean energy technologies within society often overlooks some of the negatives in favor of positives. Furthermore, this presents an opportunity for our own research to be placed in a similar but more detailed conversation, as our own research includes both an analysis of primary sources and a focus on how the topic of environmental injustice interacts with each stage in a solar panel's life cycle rather than splitting the two into separate conversations. 

IV. ANALYSIS

As mentioned previously, our research paper combines aspects from both the life cycle of a solar panel as well as environmental injustice into one holistic overview, drawing on information from both primary sources in addition to previous research papers and studies that have been conducted separately on both topics. The following section acts as a transition from a comparison of prior literature into more of an analysis and an in-depth look into what our sources and references reveal. Additionally, points are brought up about each stage in a solar panel's life cycle, mainly because each stage has its own unique impacts and sources that reflect these impacts. Specifically, references are made to certain sections of the literature review as well as primary sources such as interviews, letters, and more. 

Production

As the first step of the life cycle of solar panels, production is a significant source of pollution that we have to consider when discussing their impacts on the environment. In this part of the analysis, we look at several primary sources including newsletters, prior case studies, and reports from solar panel manufacturers, all of which demonstrate the negative impacts of solar panel production on people and the environment. Here, we analyze each step of the production and discuss how each step contributes to the inequality of green energy. 

The production of solar panels begins with mining raw materials containing various rare earth materials, such as neodymium, terbium, and indium. The rare earth metal mining process is highly polluting and hazardous. In order to mine the metal, people need to extract it from the ore. However, because "the concentration of rare earths in the ore is very low, they must be separated and purified, using hydro-metallurgical techniques and acid baths." Moreover, the process of acid baths is the major contributor to the vast pollution. After the acids pass through the ore, "the foul waters of the tailings pond contain all sorts of toxic chemicals." The remains are also highly hazardous to people, as it contains "radioactive elements such as thorium which, if ingested, cause cancers of the pancreas and lungs, and leukaemia" [38]. In addition to the population near the mine, the mining process also negatively impacts the environment. The remaining chemicals have the potential hazard of draining into underground water if not processed correctly. This pollution "has created soil incapable of supporting crops and water supplies have been contaminated." All of these hazards and damages done to the population and environment almost always coexist with the manufacturing of solar panels and, making matters worse, these hazards and damages unequally affect certain groups of people and places, especially those in developing countries. Data states that China has been the top producer of rare earth metals globally, "accounting for some 90% of the material," and in 2018, "China produced 120 000 metric tons of total rare earths while the US produced a mere 15 000" [39]. This considerable inequality is accounting for the environmental racism that is exacerbating around the world. As people in developed countries enjoy the benefits of solar panels, people and the surrounding environment, particularly in developing countries, are suffering from the cost of producing the solar panels. 

After the mining of raw materials, the following main step in the production of solar panels is the refining process of silicon. In order to purify the silicon for production, hydrochloric acid needs to be passed through to create trichlorosilane. Then, hydrogen gas is passed through to produce a highly purified polysilicon product that can be manufactured into solar panels. However, during this process, multiple harmful chemicals are created and need to be drained. Hydrochloric acid is a hazardous chemical, and the byproduct during the second step, silicon tetrachloride, is also a highly toxic material. When all these byproducts are processed correctly, it should not create many hazards. However, because of the high cost, many solar panel factories secretly dump these chemicals into the environment without processing, resulting in great hazardous pollution. In China, there has been continuous news regarding solar panel manufacturers illegally draining toxic chemicals, resulting in huge losses. In April 2011, a solar company from Hubei and a company from Jiujiang illegally dumped nearly 600 tons of unprocessed toxic silicon tetrachloride into a domestic sewage treatment plant in Hubei. Since these kinds of treatment plants are not designed for industrial sewage, the hazardous chemicals completely shut down the treatment plant, and multiple treatment facilities were severely damaged. Then, the unprocessable sewage containing the chemicals was forced to be drained into a nearby river in Hubei, resulting in an unprecedented environmental crisis. This silicon tetrachloride sewage eventually entered one of the largest fisheries in Hubei and killed 400 tons of fish and 500 million fish eggs in one month. Later it was estimated that the economic loss of the sewage treatment facility was around one million Yuan, and the economic loss of the fishery was well over three million Yuan. Furthermore, it was not even counting the enormous environmental damage caused in the river and surrounding land and the damage to the people living around the area [40].

As the people who can afford green energy solutions pursue a greener lifestyle, and as the manufacturers of solar panels pursue the ultimate profit, the people and surrounding environment around the factories are forced to take the cost and suffer from the damage caused by the production of solar panels. If no additional policies are set for these manufacturers, the environmental racism caused by green energy will only be exacerbated in our society.

Use

Continuing from the use section in the background, here we analyze in greater detail how policies and green energy transition efforts have left communities out of their consideration and impacted them negatively. A case study of the Charanka solar park in Gujarat, India in 2015 by Komali Yennetiab and Rosie Daya concluded that there was a severe lack of access to information, as many villagers only became aware of the project once excavators arrived to clear land, as well as a lack of inclusion and enfranchisement, as the people that the project would impact were left entirely out of the decision-making process [41]. Many of the same issues have occurred in other projects, which are the main focus of this section.

With India's current goals for renewable energy, approximately 11,900 km^2 of forest land and 55,700 km^2 of agricultural land could be impacted [42]. India's solar market has increased many folds and became the 5th largest clean energy investment market globally in 2017 [43]. These strong economic and business incentives are paired with political ones. On February 1st, 2020, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman announced a new budget emphasizing a green energy transition. The budget allocated Rs 300 crore for grid-interactive solar and about Rs 700 crore for off-grid projects, translating to 40 million USD and 93 million USD, respectively [44]. Furthermore, many solar projects in India have been exempted from environmental processes and public hearings, according to a new policy enacted in 2017 [45]. These factors result in some of the injustices we see in our paper. 

Just as in the background, a common action taken before projects begin is the reclassification of land. The Gujarat Power Corporation Limited (GPCL) in 2019 labeled over 5000 acres of land as "unused" even though the Charanka village was clearly cultivating over 2000 acres of that land. Villagers responded with anger at this wrongful reclassification as they used it "for grazing livestock, and [their] livelihood depends on this land." The project, urged on by incentives mentioned above, pushed on, and as a result, many villagers today are forced to find work in neighboring villages. When the GPCL was questioned, they simply stated that they did not take any grassland and only took "government wasteland" [46]. Injustices such as these reflect a lack of consideration and inclusion for local communities. Since these projects do not need environmental impact assessments, the companies do not need to worry about the damages to the local ecosystem either. Essentially, there is no reason for these companies not to label as much land as possible for their projects. 

In Vermont, where the solar industry is heavily subsidized, locals feel as if they have been "beating a drum that nobody seems to hear" as a new project has been proposed "in an open field that's been farmed for years" [47]. Similarly, in 2010, the World Bank and European Investment Bank funded a solar project in Kenya only to admit that they did not "adequately communicate with the community in their language, and that they were not fairly compensated for the loss of their land and livelihoods" [48].

Another issue that arises is the case of culturally significant land. In Livingston County, a large section of the Seneca Nation's ancestral lands is being fought over for a solar park. Many experts have already noted the historical significance of the land and the burial sites there, but the companies pushing for this project have seemingly ignored the pushback. On Indigenous People's Day, many people joined the protests that were organized but to no avail. One noted that "we are the people, but we're not the decision-makers" [49]. In India, the "sacred grove" near the Samvata village has remained untouched for centuries. However, in 2020, officials arrived and began uprooting trees for a solar power plant. Many locals depend on the land: "We have always revered the Oran; it nurtures us and is our source of life...if the Oran is destroyed, what will happen to us? Where will we go to feed our animals?" These questions were not answered by officials who even denied that trees were uprooted in the area [50]. 

There are, of course, environmental impacts of solar farms, as seen in the literature review. Damage to the surroundings includes damages to plants from the dust suppressants, [51] destruction and fragmentation of habitats just like the elephant corridor in the background [52], and wildlife mortality [53]. Looking at these impacts relative to traditional sources of energy such as coal, however, shows that solar is indeed beneficial in this regard [54].

These responses from the communities that are impacted show a consistent theme of ignoring the significance of these lands as they are incentivized by the new policies and economic investments. There should be more proper legal avenues made available to these communities so that they can see themselves represented in a court of law over these injustices. Only then would there be incentives to take local peoples into consideration more thoroughly. Solar farms are a great replacement for traditional energy sources; governments and companies need to make sure to include local expertise on land use and ecosystems. As seen in the background, there are plenty of successful projects that were partnered with or even driven by the local communities themselves. Therefore, a clean energy transition needs to be both green and inclusive. 

Disposal

As mentioned previously, our research paper provides quite specific details in regards to issues that are present within both the production and use of a solar panel's life cycle, as well as the environmental impacts and injustices these issues have and perpetuate. Furthermore, our paper focuses on specific case studies to support the points we make and primary sources that emphasize the human impacts of clean energy technologies such as solar panels. 

Alongside the aforementioned information, our research paper also focuses specifically on the disposal of solar panels. Through a detailed analysis of case studies in Africa regarding water poisoning and pollution and more general sources that focused on the "winners" and "losers" of the clean energy implementation, our research paper connects two ideas that were commonly split and not tied together. As mentioned in the literature review, many related sources often focused only on either the statistical aspect of clean energy waste and negatives or the environmental issues that were caused, failing to provide any explanation of primary sources to support their points in this regard. 

More specifically, in Ghanima Chanzi's study called "Heavy Metal Pollution Assessment along Msimbazi River, Tanzania," there is a lack of emphasis placed on the ways the information can be converted and tied back to environmental injustices caused by technologies such as clean energy. Instead, a small focus is placed on how chromium and other toxic materials can be harmful to the environment and citizens of Tanzania, showing how previous literature that focuses on disposal has been relatively brief and uninterested in terms of relating data to ideas of environmental injustice [55]. While our research paper does use this source as a frequent reference which we draw plenty of information from, we relate this information to ideas of solar panel disposal and environmental racism through making connections to another source called, "The Justice and Equity Implications of the Clean Energy Transition," by Sanya Carley and David M. Konisky. In specific, we connect the idea of "winners" and "losers" to emphasize points about how with the implementation of clean energy technologies like solar panels, there are almost always those who benefit from the use of the technology and end up saving in terms of money and the impact on their local environment in comparison to those who face the negative side effects of that use such as living next to the landfills where the toxic solar panel waste is transported and having to live in conditions where even their water is polluted [56]. 

Adding on, our paper includes primary sources such as letters to city council members and other high-ranking officials in areas like Langley, British Columbia, Canada and Virginia. Each of these letters reveal how fear around solar panel disposal is a real thing that worries communities that live near landfills, in cities with large solar farms, and areas that have been rapidly increasing their solar panel usage [57]. The letter from the Langley, British Columbia, Canada citizen specifically highlights the fear that comes with solar panel disposal. Furthermore, it shows the disconnect between the ones with power and those who deal with the consequences of the decisions they make. The writer of the letter expresses their fear in terms of how solar panels waste will be disposed of and whether it will be recycled. They highlight how the high-ranking officials in their community have failed to address the problem, an issue that is present within a variety of other companies, further revealing how solar panel disposal is an issue that many don’t have knowledge of or don’t realize the true extent of [58]. In turn, we use this primary source to show the true impact of the issue of solar panel disposal and relate it to other sources such as prior studies to further strengthen our point. 

Additionally, our primary sources offer an in-depth look at what people's opinions are on solar panel disposal as well as how it has disrupted their daily lives and caused more harm than good due to lax regulations and poor conduct from solar companies and governments. As a result, primary sources such as the ones mentioned above clearly tie into the aforementioned “winner” and “loser” mentality, mainly due to the fact that the ones in power seem to have no issue with more clean energy expansion while the citizens living near the areas used for solar panel production, use, and disposal struggle and face the most negative consequences overall. However, our paper does not just focus on disposal in terms of making this connection; as mentioned earlier, we have multiple sections detailing case studies on both the production and use of solar panels in addition to more descriptive sources that connect statistical information to environmental injustices and current impacts on different groups of people around the world. Specifically, we mention points about how land has been taken away from farmers and villagers in India, how waste from factories was dumped in China, and more. In turn, our literature contributes to multiple scholarly conversations and relates to a variety of other literature, as we discuss multiple topics while staying within the boundaries of one section of the clean energy transition.

While our arguments and research are strong in the sense that they connect different topics and bring them together in a holistic yet detailed overview, we face certain limitations. Specifically, due to the circumstances we are conducting our research in, we are limited by the prior research published and conducted by others. In that sense, we can only go as far as the information around us, as we cannot perform statistical experiments or directly interact and interview those who suffer from the clean energy transition and solar panel production, use, and disposal. Furthermore, we are unable to focus on more progressive questions and topics such as, "How can we solve some of these issues?" and "How can we implement some solutions or provide help?" since we are not in a position to actually have that kind of influence on entire communities of people. Still, our approach is new in the sense that readers will be able to clearly see many of the issues relating to solar panels that they may have initially overlooked or not been aware of, since our paper is structured in a way that is different from previous research papers because we have an overview of a solar panel's life cycle in connection to points relating to environmental injustice. So, our paper offers readers a condensed outline while still having real-world examples present. 

V. CONCLUSION

In this paper, we strive to answer how green energy technologies, especially solar panels, damage the environment and exacerbate environmental injustice. Our in-depth analysis of the environmental impacts of solar panels covers each part of the life cycle with data and information from primary resources and scholarly reviews and assesses how the impacts contribute to environmental racism. We discuss how the two primary components of the production of solar panels, rare metal mining and silicon purification, cause hazardous chemicals to be released into the environment and result in enormous damage. We analyze the excessive use and even misuse of lands due to the construction of solar panel farms and how solar panels, even though they have some obvious benefits, lead to unfair negative impacts on the local environment. Lastly, we look at how the disposal of used solar panels in certain areas contributes to severe heavy metal pollution and environmental inequality. With this data and the holistic analysis, we can conclude that unlike what the general public usually perceives of green energy, the life cycle of solar panels causes significant environmental damage, especially to the production, installation, and disposal sites where people generally cannot afford solar panels. This reflects a substantial environmental inequality between the people and places that enjoy the benefits of solar panels and those that suffer from the negative impacts. It also reflects the poor management and inadequate policy limitation on green energy and the lack of consideration and inclusion of the people who cannot afford green energy technologies. In addition, our research builds a general framework for the holistic analysis of the environmental impacts of green energy technologies. Future researchers can go more in-depth in each stage of the life cycle of solar panels with new individual researches, reviews, and experiments to strengthen our understanding of the impacts, and even go on to other green energy technologies with our review framework to contribute to the advancement of the industry. 

REFERENCES

[1] Nunez, Christina. “How Green Are Those Solar Panels, Really?” Science. National Geographic, May 3, 2021. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/141111-solar-panel-manufacturing-sustainability-ranking#:~:text=Yet%20manufacturing%20all%20those%20solar,It%20also%20creates%20waste.

[2] Mulvaney, Dustin “Solar Energy Isn’t Always as Green as You Think.” IEEE Spectrum: Technology, Engineering, and Science News, November 13, 2014. https://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/solar/solar-energy-isnt-always-as-green-as-you-think.

[3] “晶科能源深陷污染门 光伏产业污染状况堪忧.” Tencent News, October 12, 2011. https://news.qq.com/a/20111012/000670.htm?olc.

[4] Ejolt. “Antipollution Protests Against Solar Panel Manufacturers, Quanzhou, Fujian, China.” Environmental Justice Atlas. Accessed July 21, 2021. https://ejatlas.org/conflict/antipollution-protests-against-local-solar-panel-manufacturers-quanzhou-fujian-china.

[5] “Environmental Impact of Solar Panel Manufacturing.” Honua Ola Bioenergy, September 8, 2020. https://honuaolabioenergy.com/environmental-impact-of-solar-panel-manufacturing/.

[6] “How Rare-Earth Mining Has Devastated China's Environment.” Earth.Org - Past | Present | Future, July 14, 2020. https://earth.org/rare-earth-mining-has-devastated-chinas-environment/.

[7] Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, “Renewable Energy & Human Rights Benchmark”

[8] Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, “Renewable Energy & Human Rights Benchmark Briefing”

[9]  Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, “Human Rights Defenders & Business - Annual Snapshot.” 

[10] Chandran, Rina. “Indigenous People 'under Threat' from Asia Clean Energy Push.” Reuters. Thomson Reuters, February 9, 2021. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-landrights-renewables-environment-fea/indigenous-people-under-threat-from-asia-clean-energy-push-idUSKBN2A903H.

[11] Jairath, Vasundhara. “How Indigenous Land Was Grabbed for a Solar Power Plant in Assam.” EastMojo, April 18, 2021. https://www.eastmojo.com/opinion/2021/04/18/how-indigenous-land-was-grabbed-for-a-solar-power-plant-in-assam/.

[12] Delhi Solidarity GroupApril 2021. The Anatomy of A Solar Land Grab . Delhi Solidarity Group, 2021.

[13] Yenneti, Komali, and Rosie Day. “Procedural (in)Justice in the Implementation of Solar Energy: The Case of Charanaka Solar Park, Gujarat, India.” Energy Policy 86 (November 2015): 664–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.08.019.

[14] Chari, Mridula. “How Solar Farms Fuel Land Conflicts.” mint, September 21, 2020. https://www.livemint.com/news/india/how-solar-farms-fuel-land-conflicts-11600612526037.html.

[15] Davis, Diana K. The Arid Lands: History, Power, Knowledge. Cambridge Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 2016.

[16] Gabriel Pietrorazio. “Senecas Mobilize Rally against Horseshoe Solar on Indigenous Peoples Day.” Fingerlakes1.com, June 9, 2021. https://fingerlakes1.com/2020/10/12/in-depth-fight-to-protect-ancestral-lands-continues-for-indigenous-people/

[17] The Climate Reality Project. “3 Native American Tribes Leading the Way on Clean Energy.” Climate Reality, November 6, 2019. https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/3-native-american-tribes-leading-way-clean-energy.

[18] Misbrener, Kelsey. “Eight Native American Tribes See the Benefits of Solar Power.” Solar Power World, November 27, 2019. https://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/2017/08/native-american-tribes-solar/.

[19] Canada, Natural Resources. “Solar Energy Moves Indigenous Communities Toward a Renewable Future.” Cision Canada, August 8, 2019. https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/solar-energy-moves-indigenous-communities-toward-a-renewable-future-809473578.html.

[20] Chowdhury, Md. Shahariar, Kazi Sajedur Rahman, Tanjia Chowdhury, Narissara Nuthammachot, Kuaanan Techato, Md. Akhtaruzzaman, Sieh Kiong Tiong, Kamaruzzaman Sopian, and Nowshad Amin. “An Overview of Solar Photovoltaic Panels’ End-of-Life Material Recycling.” Energy Strategy Reviews 27 (2020): 100431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2019.100431.

[21] Arnoldi, Marleny. “Solar Power Industry Has Opportunity to Build Recycling Value Chain From Scratch.” Engineering News. Accessed July 21, 2021. https://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/solar-power-industry-has-opportunity-to-build-recycling-value-chain-from-scratch-2020-11-18/rep_id:4136.

[22] Chanzi, Ghanima. “Heavy Metal Pollution Assessment along Msimbazi River, Tanzania.” Journal of Scientific Research and Reports 17, no. 5 (2018): 1–8. https://doi.org/10.9734/jsrr/2017/38526.

[23] Carley, Sanya, and David M. Konisky. “The Justice and Equity Implications of the Clean Energy Transition.” Nature Energy 5, no. 8 (2020): 569–77. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-020-0641-6.

[24] Prendergast, Conor. “Solar Panel Waste: The Dark Side of Clean Energy.” Discover Magazine. Discover Magazine, December 14, 2020. https://www.discovermagazine.com/environment/solar-panel-waste-the-dark-side-of-clean-energy.

[25] “India's Growing Solar Power Programme Could Leave behind a Trail of Waste.” Mongabay, May 10, 2019. https://india.mongabay.com/2019/05/indias-growing-solar-power-programme-could-leave-behind-a-trail-of-waste/.

[26] Scott, James C. Seeing like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed, 1999.

[27] Jairath, Vasundhara. “How Indigenous Land Was Grabbed for a Solar Power Plant in Assam.” EastMojo, April 18, 2021. https://www.eastmojo.com/opinion/2021/04/18/how-indigenous-land-was-grabbed-for-a-solar-power-plant-in-assam/.

[28] Mikhail, Alan. Under Osman's Tree: the Ottoman Empire, Egypt, and Environmental History. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2017.

[29] Delhi Solidarity GroupApril 2021. The Anatomy of A Solar Land Grab . Delhi Solidarity Group, 2021.

[30] Cooper, Frederick, and Randall Packard. International Development and the Social Sciences: Essays on the History and Politics of Knowledge. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 2013.

[31] Didier Beloin-Saint-Pierre, Isabelle Blanc, Jerome Payet, and Philippe Jacquin. “Environmental Impact of PV Systems: Effects of Energy Sources Used in Production of Solar Panels.” EU PVSEC Proceedings, September 2009. https://doi.org/10.4229/24thEUPVSEC2009.

[32] Lovich, Jeffrey E., and Joshua R. Ennen. “Wildlife Conservation and Solar Energy Development in the Desert Southwest, United States.” BioScience 61, no. 12 (2011): 982–92. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2011.61.12.8.

[33] Turney, Damon, and Vasilis Fthenakis. “Environmental Impacts from the Installation and Operation of Large-Scale Solar Power Plants.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 15, no. 6 (2011): 3261–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.04.023.

[34] Chanzi, Ghanima. “Heavy Metal Pollution Assessment along Msimbazi River, Tanzania.” Journal of Scientific Research and Reports 17, no. 5 (2018): 1–8. https://doi.org/10.9734/jsrr/2017/38526.

[35] Cooper, Frederick, and Randall Packard. International Development and the Social Sciences: Essays on the History and Politics of Knowledge. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 2013.

[36] Carley, Sanya, and David M. Konisky. “The Justice and Equity Implications of the Clean Energy Transition.” Nature Energy 5, no. 8 (2020): 569–77. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-020-0641-6.

[37] Scott, James C. Seeing like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed, 1999.

[38] “Rare-Earth Mining in China Comes at a Heavy Cost for Local Villages.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, August 7, 2012. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/aug/07/china-rare-earth-village-pollution.

[39] “How Rare-Earth Mining Has Devastated China's Environment.” Earth.Org - Past | Present | Future, July 14, 2020. https://earth.org/rare-earth-mining-has-devastated-chinas-environment/.

[40] “‘南橘北枳‘的光伏产业.” discover.news.163.com. Accessed July 21, 2021. http://discover.news.163.com/special/polysilicon/.

[41] Yenneti, Komali, and Rosie Day. “Procedural (in)Justice in the Implementation of Solar Energy: The Case of Charanaka Solar Park, Gujarat, India.” Energy Policy 86 (November 2015): 664–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.08.019.

[42] Kiesecker, Joseph, Sharon Baruch-Mordo, Mike Heiner, Dhaval Negandhi, James Oakleaf, Christina Kennedy, and Pareexit Chauhan. “Renewable Energy and Land Use in India: A Vision to Facilitate Sustainable Development.” Sustainability 12, no. 1 (2019): 281. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12010281.

[43] “Climatescope 2018: New Emerging Leaders in Clean Energy Investment.” BloombergNEF, December 10, 2018. https://about.bnef.com/blog/climatescope-2018-new-emerging-leaders-clean-energy-investment/.

[44] Bhasker Tripathi, IndiaSpend.com. “Budget 2020: India Maps out Path to Promote Solar Energy and Cleaner Air.” Scroll.in. Scroll.in, February 3, 2020. https://scroll.in/article/951901/budget-2020-india-maps-out-path-to-promote-solar-energy-and-cleaner-air.

[45] Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change Government of India. OFFICE MEMORANDUM. New Delhi: Impact Assessment Division, 2017.

[46] Hemalatha, Karthikeyan. “Why India's Solar Push Could Kill The Livelihood Of Pastoral Communities.” Indiaspend. Indiaspend, August 5, 2019. https://www.indiaspend.com/why-indias-solar-push-could-kill-the-livelihood-of-pastoral-communities/.

[47] “Special Report: Rural Communities Push Back against Solar.” VTDigger, October 5, 2015. https://vtdigger.org/fullimagestory/special-report-rural-communities-push-back-against-solar/.

[48] Justine Calma, Commentary. “Renewable Energy Is Violating Human Rights as Much as Fossil Fuels Have for Decades.” Quartz. Quartz. Accessed July 21, 2021. https://qz.com/845206/renewable-energy-human-rights-violations/.

[49] Gabriel Pietrorazio. “Senecas Mobilize Rally against Horseshoe Solar on Indigenous Peoples Day.” Fingerlakes1.com, June 9, 2021. https://fingerlakes1.com/2020/10/12/in-depth-fight-to-protect-ancestral-lands-continues-for-indigenous-people/

[50] “Locals Brace to Fight for Their Oran in Rajasthan.” Mongabay, July 20, 2020. https://india.mongabay.com/2020/07/locals-brace-to-fight-for-their-oran-in-rajasthan/.

[51] Betsy Goodrich, Ronda Koski, and William R. Jacobi. “Roadside Vegetation Health Condition and Magnesium” Arboriculture & Urban Forestry , July 2008. https://auf.isa-arbor.com/request.asp?JournalID=1&ArticleID=3054&Type=2.

[52] Delhi Solidarity GroupApril 2021. The Anatomy of A Solar Land Grab . Delhi Solidarity Group, 2021; Lovich, Jeffrey E., and Joshua R. Ennen. “Wildlife Conservation and Solar Energy Development in the Desert Southwest, United States.” BioScience 61, no. 12 (2011): 982–92. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2011.61.12.8; Carlton, Jim. “Solar Power's Land Grab Hits a Snag: Environmentalists.” The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, June 4, 2021. https://www.wsj.com/articles/solar-powers-land-grab-hits-a-snag-environmentalists-11622816381.

[53] Hrala, Josh. “This Solar Plant Accidentally Incinerates Up to 6,000 Birds a Year.” ScienceAlert. Accessed July 21, 2021. https://www.sciencealert.com/this-solar-plant-accidentally-incinerates-up-to-6-000-birds-a-year.

[54] Turney, Damon, and Vasilis Fthenakis. “Environmental Impacts from the Installation and Operation of Large-Scale Solar Power Plants.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 15, no. 6 (2011): 3261–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.04.023.

[55] Chanzi, Ghanima. “Heavy Metal Pollution Assessment along Msimbazi River, Tanzania.” Journal of Scientific Research and Reports 17, no. 5 (2018): 1–8. https://doi.org/10.9734/jsrr/2017/38526.

[56] Carley, Sanya, and David M. Konisky. “The Justice and Equity Implications of the Clean Energy Transition.” Nature Energy 5, no. 8 (2020): 569–77. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-020-0641-6.

[57] “Letter to the Editor, June 6, 2021: Disposal of Solar Panels Is Not a Green Solution.” Richmond Times-Dispatch, June 5, 2021. https://richmond.com/opinion/letters/letter-to-the-editor-june-6-2021-disposal-of-solar-panels-is-not-a-green/article_9f09c153-eec9-5e50-b5b6-fa71fd0313ee.html.

[58] Service, Wire. “LETTER: Langley Letter Writer Concerned About Impending Solar Panel Waste Problem.” Aldergrove Star. Aldergrove Star, November 3, 2019. https://www.aldergrovestar.com/opinion/letter-langley-letter-writer-concerned-about-impending-solar-panel-waste-problem/.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

We want to thank our instructor Mr. Greco and our TA’s Claudia Ankrah and Gehad Abaza. They supported us throughout the course of the SRA program and provided us with feedback, tips, and the tools necessary to formulate our research paper. We also want to thank Dr. Lina Kim and all of the SRA organizers as well as all of the prior researchers such as Ghanima Chanzi, Sanya Carley, David M. Konisky, and more who all focused on this topic and inspired us to conduct our own research.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTION STATEMENT 

A.N. was responsible for the disposal stage within the background, literature review, and analysis sections as well as the environmental injustice section of the literature review. M.D. was responsible for the use stage within the background, literature review, and analysis sections as well as the colonialism section of the literature review. Y.Z. was responsible for the production stage within the background, literature review, and analysis sections as well as the development section of the literature review. A.N., M.D., and Y.Z. all collaborated on all other sections of this paper including the abstract, introduction, and conclusion, and all authors reviewed each other's background, literature review, and analysis sections.