20210419 RegTech: Knowledge, Belief and Suspicion and the trap of Wilful Blindness.

We see the same approach in relation to, for example, environmental issues. The world has sold its soul to electric vehicles but they move and mutate the environmental issues of fossil-fuelled vehicles. We know that windmills are not very efficient and that they have to be millions of them to replace fossil fuel plants. But by the time we reach that point, we will be on Generation X of the windmills; there is no viable plan for removing old windmills set in the ocean floor nor for the disposal or re-use of the whole thing. How far is this into the future? It isn’t: it became a problem when the first generation began to fail several years ago. Be it knowledge or belief, it is clear that it is not the complete solution we are being sold.

Solar panels are not the solution, either. Those that are entirely silicon and metal can, in fact, be very close to totally recycled. But in only April 2020, it was being posited that ″landfill disposal of solar panels likely safe for humans.″ That was ″greentechmedia.com.″ Is that a fact? A month later PV magazine said ″there’s limited interest in recycling. But given the presence of heavy metals, such as lead and tin, if waste is managed poorly, we’re on track for another recycling crisis.″ Is that a fact? Are they inconsistent? If they are inconsistent are they opinions? What value can we place on opinions?

And this is before the environmental disasters of mining the metals needed for batteries and the problems of disposal of batteries that have reached their end of life. The e-waste crisis that much was made of in the 2000s has been replaced with a dead-battery crisis that is receiving almost no publicity. Group think says electric is best but only by those seeking to abolish fossil fuel and, perhaps, nuclear power plants. Stand back and look at the problems and a different perspective appears.

This returns to the question, can we identify that which is evidence, information or intelligence? And to what extent is opinion the driving force?
Counter-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing laws are designed to prevent those offences, and those for tax evasion and the prevention of bribery and corruption, and regulations made under them. They all speak of ″knowledge″ and ″belief.″

Courts require facts to be proved by evidence. Facts are not proved by information or opinion, other than opinion of genuine experts and even then they take second place to physical evidence.

But it’s when we get to ″suspicion″ that things become very woolly.