Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AP News)   When environmentalists divide by zero: Should we oppose an open pit lithium mine because it's bad for the environment or support it because it's good for the environment?   (apnews.com) divider line
    More: Awkward, Donald Trump, Renewable energy, Joe Biden, Board of directors, Ivana Trump, Fred Trump, former President Donald Trump's Department, open-pit lithium  
•       •       •

741 clicks; posted to STEM » on 23 Jan 2021 at 7:30 PM (16 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

 
2021-01-23 7:58:55 PM  
8 votes:
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-01-23 9:12:41 PM  
5 votes:
Environmentalists aren't conflicted about these kinds of projects.

The materials being extracted are required, and possibly damaging waste products can be contained.  Ergo, support the existence of the extraction operation, and demand that they be regulated and required to contain it.

See also: pesticides.  No actual environmentalist individual or organization supports the wholesale banning of pesticides as a whole, they advocate regulation requiring containment and proper treatment of the associated waste-water and potentially the removal of specific materials that prove essentially impossible to contain or regulate sufficiently (e.g. DDT) from the list of permitted pesticides.  While this is an active problem and a "work in progress" for a number of obvious reasons, note that this approach has been successfully applied to fertilizers for decades, many of which are in theory and in raw chemical terms potentially just as damaging to water supplies and biomes as pesticides or even petroleum shipping.

Not that I'm saying no one is working on ways to eliminate the need for things like Lithium mines entirely, of course: tech advances just making a problem we've been working on for a while obsolete long before we actually solve that problem is definitely a thing.  The above argument could easily have been applied to petroleum exploration and shipping as recently as the 1980s... but because we didn't stop looking for technological replacements, we could quite literally stop extracting oil right now and not have to worry about the industries where the materials are actually necessary (basically, polymer manufacture) running out of material from the existing stockpile for half a decade.  So it's no longer necessary and advocating to just straight-up reduce or ban it is a valid argument again.

Maybe subby is thinking of hippies?  Hippies aren't environmentalists, dude, they're just morons.  Basically they adopt what they imagine the aesthetic trappings of environmentalism to be, filtered through their ignorant minds to near-unrecognizability, in the same way they perform empty philosophical dress-up to pretend to be communists or socialists or anarchists without any understanding of what those things are, either.
 
2021-01-23 8:43:20 PM  
5 votes:
Lithium mines are so awful! This could destroy the habitat of ::checks article:: Um... one flower. And a mining company involved in the project is working to preserve it.

Meanwhile there are about two major oil spills every year and medium sized oil spills nearly every day.

Whatever shall we do?!
 
2021-01-23 10:52:13 PM  
4 votes:

Jim_Callahan: Environmentalists aren't conflicted about these kinds of projects.

The materials being extracted are required, and possibly damaging waste products can be contained.  Ergo, support the existence of the extraction operation, and demand that they be regulated and required to contain it.

See also: pesticides.  No actual environmentalist individual or organization supports the wholesale banning of pesticides as a whole, they advocate regulation requiring containment and proper treatment of the associated waste-water and potentially the removal of specific materials that prove essentially impossible to contain or regulate sufficiently (e.g. DDT) from the list of permitted pesticides.  While this is an active problem and a "work in progress" for a number of obvious reasons, note that this approach has been successfully applied to fertilizers for decades, many of which are in theory and in raw chemical terms potentially just as damaging to water supplies and biomes as pesticides or even petroleum shipping.

Not that I'm saying no one is working on ways to eliminate the need for things like Lithium mines entirely, of course: tech advances just making a problem we've been working on for a while obsolete long before we actually solve that problem is definitely a thing.  The above argument could easily have been applied to petroleum exploration and shipping as recently as the 1980s... but because we didn't stop looking for technological replacements, we could quite literally stop extracting oil right now and not have to worry about the industries where the materials are actually necessary (basically, polymer manufacture) running out of material from the existing stockpile for half a decade.  So it's no longer necessary and advocating to just straight-up reduce or ban it is a valid argument again.

Maybe subby is thinking of hippies?  Hippies aren't environmentalists, dude, they're just morons.  Basically they adopt what they imagine the aesthetic trappings of environmentalism to be, filtered through their ignorant minds to near-unrecognizability, in the same way they perform empty philosophical dress-up to pretend to be communists or socialists or anarchists without any understanding of what those things are, either.


For every technology you will find "environmentalist" groups funded by an industry group opposed to that technology based on some spurious point, especially energy related. Windmills killing birds. Solar farms destroying habitat. They have a carbon-based battery technology currently under development that will no doubt be strongly attacked on spurious grounds by the lithium industry.

Every action has a negative downstream effect. The goal is to find a solution with a more acceptable negative effect, and what is acceptable one decade may be unacceptable the next because targets are always moving.

As it stands right now, I would rather have a mine open under US regulations rather than one controlled by China in, say, Pakistan because however bad it is here, it would be completely unrestrained in the latter example. Fewer damage will be done here. Plus we need to stop giving China so much power over our supply chain. You do that by sourcing critical raw components here whenever possible.
 
2021-01-23 8:43:55 PM  
3 votes:
Anyone who isn't permanently conflicted isn't thinking. 7+billion people on one planet.
 
2021-01-24 4:25:28 AM  
2 votes:

JasonOfOrillia: All actions have positive and negative effects.  Measure them as reasonably as you can and make a choice.


Unfortunately, that kind of analysis and self-awareness is lacking amongst the general public. Hell, it's lacking even amongst those who claim to be concerned about the environment.

CSB: I know a guy who claims to be very concerned about energy consumption and his carbon footprint, but he wants a hydrogen vehicle to stiggit to "tech bros." He apparently even went and test drove a Toyota Mirai. Having done some research on the subject, I gently reminded him that a fuel cell vehicle has a manufacturing carbon footprint on par with a 60kWh BEV, but will go on to use nearly three times as much energy per mile for the rest of its useful life. I also explained that hydrogen overwhelmingly comes from natural gas these days. It's better than gasoline, but not by a whole lot. He said he didn't care because "EVs are conspicuous consumption vehicles marketed to man-children."

We should definitely examine our choices...
 
2021-01-23 11:37:07 PM  
2 votes:
Subby must never have heard of a cost-benefit analysis.
 
2021-01-23 9:23:19 PM  
2 votes:
All actions have positive and negative effects.  Measure them as reasonably as you can and make a choice.
 
2021-01-24 6:06:42 PM  
1 vote:

ModernLuddite: It's cool to get rare-earth elements without involving child slaves. So +1 there.


It is much more than just Rare Earths.  We've exported environmental damage and slave labor all over the globe oftentimes because of the NIMBYs and many Environmentalist tendency to not have any ability to compromise.

wryheat.files.wordpress.comView Full Size
 
2021-01-24 9:37:15 AM  
1 vote:
 
2021-01-23 10:51:45 PM  
1 vote:
There are certainly enough nutters in this country who could benefit from dosing regularly with lithium, and since so many of them work in Washington DC that might not be a bad thing to do.
 
2021-01-23 8:51:26 PM  
1 vote:

Flurching: Anyone who isn't permanently conflicted isn't thinking. 7+billion people on one planet.


We're working on that problem here in the USA.
 
Displayed 12 of 12 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.