Claim: Gujarat Solar Park is Failing to Fulfil Mandatory UN Renewable Energy Gender Empowerment Requirements

Flag of the United Nations, Public Domain Image

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

h/t Dr. Willie Soon; According to North Michigan Assistant Professor Professor Ryan Stock, despite having a “gender positive” female empowerment programme, Gujarat Solar Park is failing to meet mandatory UN gender targets.

Bright as night: Illuminating the antinomies of ‘gender positive’ solar development

Ryan Stock

Highlights

  • The Gujarat Solar Park is an archetype of India’s sustainable energy transition.
  • The solar park is mandated to facilitate ‘gender positive’ outcomes and boasts female empowerment.
  • Configurations of labor under the political economy of solar have excluded women from employment opportunities.
  • Corporate social responsibility schemes designed to empower women reproduced caste and class-based social power asymmetries.
  • Solar park development in India represents an antinomy of a nature-society relation.

Abstract

India is undergoing a rapid transition to renewable energy; the Gujarat Solar Park typifies this transition. In addition to mitigating climate change, the Gujarat Solar Park boasts female empowerment through social development schemes. This manuscript is inspired by the following research question: To what extent are ‘gender positive’ processes and projects associated with solar development in India realized on the ground? Utilizing mixed methods fieldwork and drawing on literature from feminist political ecology, this paper demonstrates how the modalities of solar park development represent an antinomy of a nature-society relation. New configurations of labor under the political economy of solar have produced a gendered surplus population of landless peasants who are not absorbed into wage-labor employment in the solar park. Further, associated social development schemes actually disempower women, despite mandates of ‘gender positive’ outcomes by UN-based climate treaties to which this project is beholden. The opportunity to participate in one such scheme for female empowerment was reserved for only women of middle-to-high class status and those of dominant castes, thereby reproducing class and caste-based social power asymmetries. Female (dis)empowerment eclipses ‘gender positive’ guarantees of the solar park. This study highlights some unintended consequences of sustainable energy transitions in the Global South at the local scale. Designing development interventions related to climate change mitigation that boast ‘gender positive’ outcomes must be careful not to exacerbate gender disparities and economic exclusion in rural areas.

Read more: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305750X20303235#!

Obviously if you thought solar parks are something to do with renewable energy, you are mistaken; Solar parks are for implementing United Nations gender empowerment programmes.

115 thoughts on “Claim: Gujarat Solar Park is Failing to Fulfil Mandatory UN Renewable Energy Gender Empowerment Requirements

  1. Once the Marxists get their hooks in you it never stops. None of it is about equality, energy, or AGW. It’s all about gaining control and once that happens those that put them in power are quickly forgotten and the elite purged. History for some is nothing but a class you take in school.

      • Like your screen name, pommy humor
        I know a lot about Rudyard Kipling, his farm manager in NZ Jock/John Anderson, had hand written letters, which I read. Unfortunately destroyed, when his home was cleared out after his wife died shortly after him.
        graham

    • Yes, single/central/minority (i.e. left-wing) regimes. That said, class-based judgments, not limited to racism, that deny individual dignity, deny individual conscience, normalize color quotas, color blocs, and affirmative discrimination are socially progressive, forward-looking.

        • Yes, life deemed unworthy of life, past, present, and progressive, again, and again, and again. The rationalization changes, the motive remains fixed: social progress, an indelible plague on communities, nations, and humanity. A wicked solution, to what its advocates purport are hard problems, literal “burdens”.

        • Incidentally, the foundation of American exceptionalism is founded in our national charter, “The Declaration of Independence”: Pro-Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, in a universal frame of reference, does not indulge diversity, chauvinism, political congruence (i.e. sociopolitical constructs), and other class-based bigotries. Progress (i.e. unqualified monotonic change) marches on, maybe.

    • “mandatory UN gender targets” ?

      Mandated by whom?

      Is this something the state govt had to mandate in order to get a cut of the Green Slush Fund we are all supposed to be paying into?

      I’ve said since the day it was announced that it is nothing but the treasury of unelected NWO coup being attempted by the UN.

    • Mandatory requirements? Tut, tut, surely, the UN should not be using ‘mandatory’, but a gender neutral word, such as persondatory or compulsory if they want to support gender empowerment? ; )

  2. I think you are missing the point…

    This is a solar park of at least 1.6 GW (2016 figures). The Gujarat government also has plans to develop a 41,500-megawatt (MW) hybrid renewable energy park in Kutch.

    At present (till August 31, 2020), India’s installed capacity of renewable energy is 88,793.43 MW and the country has a target of 175,000 MW of renewable power by 2022.

      • It just proves what rich upper-caste women in India can achieve if they adopt lesbian political dance theory and given money from poor white folks in the West.

      • Maybe griff is trying to point out that, despite the size and land requirements, there is gender equality in the gender of the plants and wildlife displaced?

        Oh, I’d better write sarc for Griff’s sake.

    • griff
      What is the point that is being missed? That ‘social justice’ is what ‘renewable’ energy is all about, rather than supplying affordable, dependable power for the population?

    • “…At present (till August 31, 2020), India’s installed capacity of renewable energy is 88,793.43 MW and the country has a target of 175,000 MW of renewable power by 2022…”

      Griffy-poo:

      1) Do you know what capacity factor is? The capacity factor for wind and solar is (roughly speaking) in the 25-30% range I believe. 88,793 X .30 = 26,638 MW. Quite a drop, eh Griffy?

      2) Do know that wind and solar are not dispatchable? That means the panels and turbines (at times) produce electricity when it is not needed on the grid. It has to be gotten rid of by paying someone to take it off your hands. It’s called a negative price Griffy. It doesn’t do grid stability any good.

      3) Do you know if India plans on replacing all those solar panels and wind turbines at the end of their useful lives? Will cost big $$$$ (rupees actually in India). Will they be anywhere near 100% recyclable? How will India dispose of all the toxic waste they leave behind?

      4. Are you aware of all the CO2 the cement bases of solar panels and wind turbines emit? Do the panels and turbines still save more CO2 than their cement bases emit? When you add in the CO2 from raw material mining, manufacturing and installation, is there still a net CO2 savings?

      5. How many Indian species of birds and bats will meet their demise from the blades of the wind turbines? Do those avian deaths make the turbines Eco-friendly?

      I could go on Griffy-poo, but I think you get the idea. These issues don’t go away just because you ignore them, and perhaps someday you will understand how foolish it was for you to believe the wind and solar energy pushers. One of the worst thing about being in a cult is not realizing you are in one.

      • The tone of this, the expressin ‘Griffy-poo’, the condescension and personal attack in it, is disgusting. We may not agree with Griff, we may feel that he misrepresents situations, but that is no reason to indulge in this kind of thing. Perhaps the author thinks its funny? It is not. Perhaps he thinks people will join in? I hope they have the decency not to.

        Because it is not simply lack of respect for Griff. It is, equally or more important, a complete lack of respect for WUWT, which is a forum where this kind of thing has no place.

        If you cannot write a polite, even if vigorous, rebuttal, then as Archie Bunker used to say: Stifle yourself!

        • Maybe- maybe not. There are some people who are determined to be annoying- and to never learn anything that doesn’t fit in with their idealistic vision of reality. Since he continues to show up- he apparently isn’t terribly bothered by the sarcasm and insults. He’s a big boy and doesn’t need protection. Being new to WUWT, myself, I see that it’s not a tea party and isn’t going to be.

    • Better to miss the point, Griff, than to find yourself skewered on it like a bug on display, pinned down and helpless by the ‘higher purpose’ persons who would de-industrialize us For their own elitist controlling purposes.

    • Unreliables is actually about 73,000 MW installed

      India’s FOSSIL FUEL installed capacity is around 250,600 MW

      AND it is capable of producing ALL of that nameplate

      Data on actual production of electricity shows that fossil fuels produce basically TEN TIMES the amount of electricity as wind and solar

      When it comes to Total energy use.. wind and solar b arely register

      https://gailtheactuary.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/india-energy-consumption-by-fuel-plus-consumption-to-2017.png

      You really should stop drawing attention to just how much of a pathetic waste of money these UNRELIABLE energy sources are.

    • Griff here is the two numbers they are showing you from above … July 2020 data
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_India

      Installed capacity ===> Solar Power: 35,303.3 MW (9.5%)
      Electricity generation ===> Solar Power: 39,268 GWh (2.9%)

      Do you see the problem, 9.5% of the installed capacity but 2.9% of the generation.

      So now do that with Coal generation … it punches above it’s weight
      Installed capacity ===> Coal: 199,594.5 MW (53.7%)
      Electricity generation ===> Coal: 1,021,997 GWh (74.5%)

      Until you can get your beloved renewables to at least unity they are a dead weight.

      • I always liked paying for something that didn’t exist, don’t you?
        With wind and solar you’re buying the production but paying the Nameplate Capacity rate

  3. BAFFLEGAB!
    Defined as:
    Multiloquence, characteterised by a consummate interfusion of periphrasis, inscrutability, incognisability and other familiar manifestations, implementing procrustean determinations by governmental bodies. 🤡

  4. So just because the electrical power out of a solar installation is unreliable and intermittent, there is no reason not to blanket the countryside with them. Gender positive power can be reliable and drama free.

    • Boast is the best word in this context.

      boast = To talk or write about oneself or something related to oneself in a proud or self-admiring way. (The Free Dictionary)

      A bit like the two presidential candidates boasting themselves on how the one is better than the other 🙂

      • … or, as W.S. Gilbert put it:
        If you wish in the world to advance,
        Your merits you’re bound to enhance,
        You must stir it and stump it,
        And blow your own trumpet,
        Or, trust me, you haven’t a chance!

    • Yes, sex-correlated attributes, with rare exception, are a positive indicator of gender. However, gender is physical and mental (e.g. sexual orientation) sex-correlated attributes. The masculine and feminine genders are normally distributed with some edge cases, including homosexual, bisexual, intersexual, neosexual, etc., some through indoctrination and medical corruption.

      • n.n.
        From what I read, “sexual orientation” is correlated with physical gender, but is not a reliable predictor of sexual preference, if any. There used to be an East Bay (Calif.) newspaper called “Anything That Moves” that expressed the preferences of some of the fringe groups.

        • Sexual orientation/preference is a gender attribute correlated with biological sex. The fringe preferences (e.g. homosexual or diametric divergence) are in the transgender spectrum.

      • However, gender is physical and mental (e.g. sexual orientation) sex-correlated attributes. The masculine and feminine genders are normally distributed with some edge cases, including homosexual, bisexual, intersexual, neosexual, etc., some through indoctrination and medical corruption

        The modern concept of gender is incoherent, but this is wrong. Homosexuality is not a gender but a sexual orientation. Intersexual is a biological condition, not a gender. In modern theory there are many more genders than masculine and feminine, and others are not edge cases, but are argued to be equally legitimate, real, common…etc

        The problem with this modern concept of gender and its use is the following.

        There are two sexes in humans, male and female. This is a matter of biology. We can imagine species in which there are more than two, or even less than two I suppose, but in humans there are two.

        There are within this a tiny proportion of people who have biological characteristics of both sexes. But they do not constitute other sexes. India has legislated to classify the hijira, voluntary eunuchs, as a third sex. Maybe this is justifiable on social grounds to improve their civil rights, but its biological nonsense. Eunuchs are male.

        The modern concept of gender is that there are many of them. For example here its claimed there are 63, or perhaps 81 in the author’s latest count:

        https://apath.org/63-genders/

        Others claim there are an indefinite number of genders, as many as there are people and how they choose to identify themselves. There has been material proposed for use in educating British children that claimed there were more than 100 genders.

        Its difficult when reading this stuff to tell whether the sites are parodies, because modern writing about sex and gender is full of seriously intended material which would cause wild laughter if published as parody. The opaque writings of Judith Butler among others are presumably seriously meant, but where comprehensible are really beyond parody.

        You can see what the problems with this are. First, that the expression ‘cis-gender’, an important concept in contemporary gender theory, is inconsistent with the existence of 10, 20 or 100 genders.

        The expression means that the individuals gender and sex are the same. But according to the theory, there is no male or female gender. But what you find is that people talking about trans or cis-gender tend to assume there are two genders. You are born biologically male or female, but you can be either as a matter of identity. Hence we come on the concept of being a man imprisoned in a female body (or vice versa).

        The second problem is that in use, the theory assumes a view of sex roles which the advocates are trying to deny. You are, lets say, a biologically female child. but you behave in what always have been traditionally boyish ways. Trans advocates take this as a sign that your gender identity may be different from your biological sex. But its immediately clear that this account depends on a very traditional view of sex roles.

        There is no reason why a female child with no interest in dolls, and a strong interest in playing football and marksmanship should be considered abnormal or manifesting cross-sex behavior. The only way you get to argue that is by assuming a very narrow concept of what is normal behavior for girls and boys. In short, by reducing your concept of gender down to two again. It is back to the 1950s.

        The usual thing – all radical movements reinvent the prejudices of the past which they are nominally trying to overturn.

        An amusing account of well meaning people trying to wrestle with this stuff will be found in Cosmopolitan! Worth reading:

        https://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/a20888315/genders-identity-list-definitions/

        You can also google ‘how many genders are there?’ and get even more bemused. And if this seems too tame, try reading Judith Butler, or Foucault or the other post modernists. Which consist for the most part of one long wail that words mean what I want them to mean, and facts are what I want them to be. But that’s another story.

      • “Gender” is another Latin-derived word for language term for words with different syntax and spelling that usually associate word spellings with “sex” but often are arbitrary since they often apply to things like rocks, bridges, foods. Latin is particularly difficult since almost all words for “things” have a gender for spelling and sentence structure.

          • As do German, Dutch, Russian. Many languages have three. In the original edition of Fowler’s English Usage (1920s) this grammatical meaning its said to be the only correct use of the term ‘gender’, and that to use it to mean the sex of a living being is wrong usage.

    • “If you want to know which gender you are, stand in front of a mirror and drop your pants.”

      No, that will tell you what sex you are. Gender is behavior, not biology.

      • “If you want to know which gender you are, stand in front of a mirror and drop your pants.”

        No, that will tell you what sex you are. Gender is behavior, not biology.

        This is partly wrong too, in contemporary usage. Gender isn’t classed as behavior but identity.

        Yes, you can tell by looking at yourself which sex you are. You can also tell what sexual orientation you are by who you are attracted to. You can tell what your sexual behavior is by what sexual acts you do and with who.

        But you tell which gender you are in some less well defined way by being aware of what you feel you are. And this is where the problems start. Its now necessary to specify how many ways there are to feel, as regards your gender.

        You notice here the classic difficulty which occurs when a concept is prone to a reductio argument. Some people have argued there are as many genders as there are people. This then deprives the concept of any content. My gender is then just who I am, which I specify in any way I want, and no longer has any relation to sex. At this point the concept has become undefined.

        The way out of this is to revert to classic post modern nonsense and basically to claim that the demand to specify the concept is oppressive, heteronormative, transphobic, racist, colonialist, imperialist, misogynistic.

        In short, please be quiet my head is hurting!

        • What we got from all that is there are plenty of crazy snowflakes out there who mistakenly believe we give a rats what they think.

          • There are, but its actually a lot more serious than that.

            The same attitude to evidence, to facts, the same confusion between what I feel and what is the case, the same personalization of every issue on the basis of claimed identity…

            All that characterizes many woke issues, from gender to climate. Public discourse and argument has been poisoned by it. We are seeing the cost in the pending election. We also see it on climate. It is why we are being endlessly told to do things in the name of climate change which will have no effect whatever on it.

    • If you want to know which gender you are, just look in your Genes
      If you want to know which bathroom to use, how are you plumbed?
      If you’re plumbed as a pointer, stay out of the little girls room.

  5. Sex? Male or female.
    Gender? Masculine or feminine.
    Transgender spectrum? From homosexual to neosexual.

    Perhaps diversity, or color judgment, not limited to racism, too.

    • Again, not exactly. Transgender is having a gender which is different from one’s biological sex. It is independent of being homosexual, which is being sexually oriented to people of the same sex.

      Leads to the question whether, if someone of one sex with with orientation to the other transitions to the other, were they heterosexual before but have now become homosexual? Seems logically to follow.

      There are probably studies on whether transitioning affects sexual orientation. The few cases I know of personally, it did not. In one case a guy was gay, and remained oriented to men when he transitioned to female. In another a guy was heterosexual and remained oriented to women when transitioned to female.

  6. The modern way to address this issue is for the Park operators to convince an adequate number of male employees to declare themselves female. It works for sports, why not business?

    • So what’s the big deal? At best a Solar Plant is only expected to fulfill any empowerment requirement about 40 percent of the time.

    • But it begs the question: What gender are solar panels?
      If solar panels are mixed gender, you risk they multiply out of control, if serial connected.

      • Well whichever gender they are, they’re certainly hot for each other
        If you really want to know, just ask them between 9:30 am and 3pm they might be willing to illuminate you then

      • Ironically, there are male plugs and female plugs. Odd how the power flows when the fit together the way they are designed to.

  7. Gender is masculine or feminine, or sex-correlated physical and mental (e.g. sexual orientation) attributes. They can just indoctrinate or medically corrupt (e.g. breast augmentation) a man or woman to meet their gender quota. Diversity is a forward-looking dogmatic belief. Progress is one step forward, two steps backward, or unqualified, monotonic change.

  8. “New configurations of labor under the political economy of solar have produced a gendered surplus population of landless peasants who are not absorbed into wage-labor employment in the solar park.”

    Curious, I will need my Bafflegab translator.
    “produced a gendered surplus population of landless peasants”
    Seems they seized a bunch of land to build the solar farm. The peasants were thrown off the land and were left destitute. How about that? Furthermore, the displaced peasants had a larger proportion of women. Who would have guessed that might happen?
    “not absorbed into wage-labor employment in the solar park.”
    After promises made, said peasants were not hired by the solar farm after all. For shame.

    A solar farm. How Wonderful. How Green. How Empowering.

  9. “literature from feminist political ecology, … modalities of solar park development represent an antinomy of a nature-society relation … configurations of labor under the political economy of solar have produced a gendered surplus population of landless peasants who are not absorbed into wage-labor employment in the solar park … schemes actually disempower women, despite mandates of ‘gender positive’ outcomes by UN-based climate treaties to which this project is beholden ..
    … thereby reproducing class and caste-based social power asymmetries.”

    Good Lord, Ryan get a grip! Trust me, this is an embarrassment for you.

    This is what folks are paying $100,000 for to send their child for a higher(?) education(?). Greta Thunberg may not save the planet by exiting school to protest but she is highly likely to save a lot of children from their néomarxiste indoctrination. They will probably give her an indoctrinate of climate science communication and a nobel prize anyway, though.

  10. It is been my experience that often women simply do not want work in many of the jobs that are male dominated. Most do not care for some of these lines of work.

    • Interesting. Jordan Peterson has a nice video analyzing how preferences of the two sexes behave when they have more equal opportunities- Sweden being the example.

      Sweden has a lot of support for women in child-bearing, child care, and other equalizing functions that also apply to men if needed. They even out the opportunities for both women and men.

      The surprise was that the more equal the opportunities between the sexes the men were more attracted to typically masculine roles- science, technology, manufacturing, mechanical work, etc. Women were attracted to motherhood, teaching, cooking, child-care and other more usual maternal tasks.

      The less pressure on choosing resulted in a significant differentiation in “traditional” choices. Peterson was really surprised by the difference and all the usual opponents simply refused to believe him even though it’s be confirmed by other studies.

      Other research has shown, as best psychology can, that women are better than men at skills such as empathy, caring, relationships, speech, teaching , interest in people, etc. Men are to a degree better at more physical skills- math, physical strength, logic, interest in things, etc.

      The differences aren’t huge but they are all offset a few percent at the median of the curve. That means that the extremes there are, for example, no women who have won world chess championships. There are no men who have tested off the scale in empathy.

      This kind of throws all the supposed psychlogical research into “gender” into the dustbin. Gender can’t be identified, it can only be proclaimed and untestable. In other words, everyone can have their own opinion.

  11. a gendered surplus population

    One-child? Selective-child under the Progressive Church’s Pro-Choice quasi-religion (“ethics”) seems to have produced a more equitable outcome, favoring neither male nor female, masculine nor feminine gender, respectively. It’s still a blight, trans-humane, albeit socially just, forward-looking on humanity. Oh, well, a wicked solution, again, to what is purportedly a hard problem.

  12. Is this where the money (that part not skimmed) in the UN Green Slush Fund goes?
    Like the money {$500M} Obama pushed out the White House door before he left.

  13. “The opportunity to participate in one such scheme for female empowerment was reserved for only women of middle-to-high class status and those of dominant castes, thereby reproducing class and caste-based social power asymmetries.”

    I doubt this is true, since the cement bases require concrete. At least in 2004, near every road works in UP, there were women converting river boulders to gravel, same as when I was a kid in the 60’s. Thus, I am pretty sure there were low cast poor women employed. Also, providing power empowers the whole family, and this does rub off on women. Pity its not providing power at night.

  14. My God.

    The sooner we (the US) can pull out every last penny of support from the UN, the better.

    This is completely bonkers.

    • It’s not just the UN. The social contagion has been a global pandemic over a multi-decadal period, and is a first-order forcing of progressive (i.e. monotonic/catastrophic) climate change.

  15. “and drawing on literature from feminist political ecology”…
    Wow. Can’t make this up.
    Do you realize now the magnitude of the intellectual terrorism organized by the UN ?

  16. My first thought was who is this guy?

    From the website with the article:

    “Ryan Stock is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Earth, Environmental and Geographical Sciences at Northern Michigan University. His work examines development interventions, social power and intersectional social difference, and the political economy of environmental change.”

    Really? He is actually paid to “examine development interventions, social power and intersectional social difference”?

    CommieBob introduced us all to the phrase “Grievance Studies” in a comment several weeks ago. This is just another example.

    • “Ryan Stock is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Earth, Environmental and Geographical Sciences at Northern Michigan University. His work examines development interventions, social power and intersectional social difference, and the political economy of environmental change.”

      Assistant Professor of gobbledygook. As I like to say, at least bovine dung is useful as fertilizer.

  17. The who-zet failed to empower the what-zet with mandatory watch-ema-call-its over in where-zet?

    Huh? :-\

    (Yes, this was all rhetorical)

  18. “Solar parks are for implementing United Nations gender empowerment programmes.”

    Solar is misogynist? Tear it down along with phallic wind turbines? I could get all snaggy and live with that but where’s the catch?

    • Actually, you are closer to the truth than you think. If women got jobs cleaning solar panels, it would be a major change to the norm in the highly differentiated breadwinner roles in these societies. It is generally considered that the result of educated career seeking women is population control and fewer resources used by large families. However a basis of this assumption is that there are enough jobs to go around…which often isn’t the case in the very countries elitists try to implement their philosophy.

    • So desire to help someone is actually desire to show superiority….so it follows that desire to denigrate someone is actually showing belief that you are inferior.
      Logic invalidated…QED…with a /sarc somewhere in there.

  19. Communism = equal misery. except for the Party elites, who still live in abject of lives. North Korea is a communist utopia setup by the founding Kim. Equal misery, constant hunger, death everywhere at the uncaring hand of the state.

    Gender/Sex equality:
    Women in communist utopia wear no make-up. and wear brown or black gender neutral clothing. Everyone wears the same the worker’s class clothes.

  20. In English there are typically 2 words for one thing, one derived from old Germanic roots, one is derived from French, eg. (Germanic left, French right)

    keep – preserve
    buy – purchase
    wild – savage
    snake – serpent
    sex – gender

    Right now the Spiteful Mutant (*) part of political left is trying to change the meaning for the French-English word gender, claiming that it means something different than in the past, that it meaning is solipsistic (internal state of the mind of a person defines reality).

    (*) As in Spitefu Mutant theory by Michael Woodley and Edward Dutton

    • Think the last is incorrect. Fowler first edition says the only correct use of ‘gender’ is grammatical, and that when used to mean the sex of an individual it is used wrongly. That was 1920 or so.

      Assuming this is right, gender was not used to mean the same as ‘sex’. Also, ‘sex’ is surely derived from the French?

  21. Only 100% renewable energy produced by transgenders or non-binary persons of color will appease the climate justice hooligans.

    And beer must be carbon negative. Soon wine and whiskey, too.

    {sarc}

Comments are closed.