7 ms·

Similarly aluminum is the most abundant mineral on Earth's surface, but aluminum is only harvested from bauxite rock formations. The highest concentration of g

Similarly aluminum is the most abundant mineral on Earth's surface, but aluminum is only harvested from bauxite rock formations. The highest concentration of gold on the planet is thought to reside just off the continental shelf next to California, but this is never harvested because scraping the ocean floor for trace metals is too expensive. Density and costs of extraction matter. The primary problem is hypocrisy. Environmentalists don't want a metal harvested from their backyard, but require it be harvested elsewhere at equal environmental impact. The options are clear: be content with atmospheric carbon, trade atmospheric carbon for water polluting metal extraction, or stop using electricity.

SiempreViernes 8y ago
The primary problem is quite obviously the carbon lobby/climate change deniers, without which serious effort to rein in unchecked carbon emission would have started 30 years ago. Trying to blame some private individuals for the system failure we have lived through is pretty weird.
- Cthulhu_ 8y ago
  Well no, that isn't the primary problem. The carbon lobby wants to keep coal plants, but the alternative currently involves what the linked article is about - battery production, which produces a lot of waste as well. Other alternatives are windmills (visuals, kill a lot of birds), solar panels (hard to compensate their energy production with the energy required to make them), nuclear power (the US has a huge nuclear waste problem), etc. It's a compromise. It's replacing one evil with another. It's more a matter of where you draw the line; I for example am in favor of nuclear energy because the waste product, while extremely dangerous for tens of thousands of years, is in a neat and relatively compact package, instead of blown out into the atmosphere. But I digress; the only real solution is population and economic decrease. That's unlikely to happen unless something catastrophic happens, but that is the only way without replacing one bad thing with another.
  - Aromasin 8y ago
    > solar panels (hard to compensate their energy production with the energy required to make them) That hasn't been a major issue for a number of years. It only takes a few years on average to 'break even' on energy in vs energy out [1]. [1] https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es3038824 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es3038824
    - rcxdude 8y ago
      Which is actually substantially better than a producing oil rig.
      - Aromasin 8y ago
        Agreed, which comes back to the question as to why we don't cover vast swathes of uninhabitable desert in said solar panels - and we come back to the root of the issue; carbon lobbying.
        dahfizz 8y ago
        Can you actually give an example of the carbon lobby blocking something like this? I think the environmental impact + logistics + cost are more likely the reason this is not common.
        SiempreViernes 8y ago
        If you genuinely don't know the basic story of anti-science work by the big oil/carbon companies, the basic story is this: the science was pretty clear by 1980 that we need to draw down carbon emissions, and by wilfully lying and deceiving the carbon lobby has managed to muddle the water enough that emissions have grown yearly instead. Here is a detailed timeline over the case of Exxon and their actions in relation to climate change: https://exxonknew.org/timeline/ https://exxonknew.org/timeline/
        8y ago
- mizchief2 8y ago
  As a country it is just good resource strategy to use up all the resources that are cheap to get in other countries first so when they start to run out, not only do you have a source that is close to home and easy to get, but you can now sell your resources at the higher price.
Quarrelsome 8y ago
I thought the clearest option is to harvest it from nations with weak environmental lobbies, like we do today. Anyone up for some Amazon rain-forest?
- eesmith 8y ago
  Which brings us back to the L.A. Times article: > Drilling opponents also acknowledge that the burden of producing lithium should not just fall on nations with less restrictive health and safety regulations and environmental safeguards. > "It's a tricky question," said Lisa Belenky, senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. "We shouldn't export the sacrifices to Bolivia and Argentina, for example, which have massive lithium mines. ... We also think that Panamint Valley is not the right place for it."

SiempreViernes 8y ago

The primary problem is quite obviously the carbon lobby/climate change deniers, without which serious effort to rein in unchecked carbon emission would have started 30 years ago. Trying to blame some private individuals for the system failure we have lived through is pretty weird.

Cthulhu_ 8y ago
Well no, that isn't the primary problem. The carbon lobby wants to keep coal plants, but the alternative currently involves what the linked article is about - battery production, which produces a lot of waste as well. Other alternatives are windmills (visuals, kill a lot of birds), solar panels (hard to compensate their energy production with the energy required to make them), nuclear power (the US has a huge nuclear waste problem), etc. It's a compromise. It's replacing one evil with another. It's more a matter of where you draw the line; I for example am in favor of nuclear energy because the waste product, while extremely dangerous for tens of thousands of years, is in a neat and relatively compact package, instead of blown out into the atmosphere. But I digress; the only real solution is population and economic decrease. That's unlikely to happen unless something catastrophic happens, but that is the only way without replacing one bad thing with another.
- Aromasin 8y ago
  > solar panels (hard to compensate their energy production with the energy required to make them) That hasn't been a major issue for a number of years. It only takes a few years on average to 'break even' on energy in vs energy out [1]. [1] https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es3038824 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es3038824
  - rcxdude 8y ago
    Which is actually substantially better than a producing oil rig.
    - Aromasin 8y ago
      Agreed, which comes back to the question as to why we don't cover vast swathes of uninhabitable desert in said solar panels - and we come back to the root of the issue; carbon lobbying.
      - dahfizz 8y ago
        Can you actually give an example of the carbon lobby blocking something like this? I think the environmental impact + logistics + cost are more likely the reason this is not common.
        SiempreViernes 8y ago
        If you genuinely don't know the basic story of anti-science work by the big oil/carbon companies, the basic story is this: the science was pretty clear by 1980 that we need to draw down carbon emissions, and by wilfully lying and deceiving the carbon lobby has managed to muddle the water enough that emissions have grown yearly instead. Here is a detailed timeline over the case of Exxon and their actions in relation to climate change: https://exxonknew.org/timeline/ https://exxonknew.org/timeline/
        8y ago
mizchief2 8y ago
As a country it is just good resource strategy to use up all the resources that are cheap to get in other countries first so when they start to run out, not only do you have a source that is close to home and easy to get, but you can now sell your resources at the higher price.

Quarrelsome 8y ago

I thought the clearest option is to harvest it from nations with weak environmental lobbies, like we do today. Anyone up for some Amazon rain-forest?

eesmith 8y ago
Which brings us back to the L.A. Times article: > Drilling opponents also acknowledge that the burden of producing lithium should not just fall on nations with less restrictive health and safety regulations and environmental safeguards. > "It's a tricky question," said Lisa Belenky, senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. "We shouldn't export the sacrifices to Bolivia and Argentina, for example, which have massive lithium mines. ... We also think that Panamint Valley is not the right place for it."