3 ms·

Localised environmental destruction is such a pittance compared to global environmental catastrophe that its comical people even bring it up.

Synaesthesia 4y ago
But it's not an either/or. The mining and transport of metals also releases carbon dioxide. To give an example every day I see convoys of trucks coming from Zambia to South African ports. These should be transported by train! The solution is smaller, more efficient cars, electric bikes, public transport and things like that, not expensive 3 ton Tesla cars.
lob_it 4y ago
Abandonded mines (with the environmental carelessness) and the coming revelation of abandoned oil/gas operations leaking greenhouse gases is just a slice of history on repeat. https://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/abandoned-mine.htm https://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/aba... It looks like insufficient bonds and bankruptcy just shifted cost burdens for cleanup to government. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/cleaning-abandoned-coal-mines-important-difficult https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/cleaning-abandoned-coal-mi... https://apnews.com/article/business-mountains-environment-and-nature-bills-bef72619fbd977e22c887df63143b17e https://apnews.com/article/business-mountains-environment-an... Most of the issues with abandonded mines can be confirmed in several countries, but the profits from pump and dump do afford positive GDP (superfund cleanups, etc). The ROI while in operation keeps it going and keeps the "we need renewables now" crowd focused on (someone elses) goal(s) :) The oil and gas industries have already started transfering ownership to smaller companies to bypass obligations, so the cycle continues, with new lithium mining just coming on the heels of two other unresolved climate catastrophes.
- iso1631 4y ago
  > It looks like insufficient bonds and bankruptcy just shifted cost burdens for cleanup to government. That's the goal of capitalism, privitise the profits, socialise the losses.
  - _jvqe 4y ago
    I actually only looked at north america, knowing that it happens in every country that mines. Capitalism is not the scapegoat. https://e360.yale.edu/features/china-wrestles-with-the-toxic-aftermath-of-rare-earth-mining https://e360.yale.edu/features/china-wrestles-with-the-toxic... The psuedo-environmentalists getting played like a 2-bit....crypto investor (not my 1st word choice, but still relevant) is funny though :p
    - asdff 4y ago
      Capitalism exists in every country today. You would not have chinese billionaires today if they were not a capitalistic country. They are socialist in almost name only these days; they are clearly not interested in redistributing wealth or favoring the health of the collective over the wealth of the elite. IMO there aren't many great examples of socialist governments, since many of the historical examples we've seen have been from a powerful elite using the mass appeal of the socialist message solely to put themselves in charge of an authoritarian state and use that position to further their own personal interests, versus to focus on collective benefits.
  - kortilla 4y ago
    No it isn’t. Where does such a statement even come from? That’s like saying the goal of socialism is to starve everyone.
    - sophacles 4y ago
      In capitalism, attempts to change the status quo are always met with "but this will hurt profits!" In socialism, attempts to change the status quo are not met with "but fewer people will starve this way" Whether or not the GP is correct, it's silly to feign ignorance of how this idea could come about.
      - kortilla 4y ago
        >In capitalism, attempts to change the status quo are always met with "but this will hurt profits!" This is laughably stupid. The entire point of capitalism is to constantly disrupt the status quo of competitors to eat their margin. What you’re describing is some state run capitalism or state guaranteed monopolies where the only possible disruption could come from the government.
dsfyu404ed 4y ago
>Localised environmental destruction is such a pittance compared to global environmental catastrophe that its comical people even bring it up. While every environmentalist ever talks about "the greater good" they pouted and whined and tossed the plate on the floor when there was nuclear energy on it. You'll have to forgive the general public for not taking you (as a group) at your word.
- strbean 4y ago
  I think the issue with nuclear energy is the combined threats of local destruction and global environmental catastrophe. They may be overblown, but mining lithium to make electric cars doesn't increase the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation, for example.

Synaesthesia 4y ago

But it's not an either/or. The mining and transport of metals also releases carbon dioxide. To give an example every day I see convoys of trucks coming from Zambia to South African ports. These should be transported by train! The solution is smaller, more efficient cars, electric bikes, public transport and things like that, not expensive 3 ton Tesla cars.

lob_it 4y ago

Abandonded mines (with the environmental carelessness) and the coming revelation of abandoned oil/gas operations leaking greenhouse gases is just a slice of history on repeat. https://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/abandoned-mine.htm https://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/aba... It looks like insufficient bonds and bankruptcy just shifted cost burdens for cleanup to government. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/cleaning-abandoned-coal-mines-important-difficult https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/cleaning-abandoned-coal-mi... https://apnews.com/article/business-mountains-environment-and-nature-bills-bef72619fbd977e22c887df63143b17e https://apnews.com/article/business-mountains-environment-an... Most of the issues with abandonded mines can be confirmed in several countries, but the profits from pump and dump do afford positive GDP (superfund cleanups, etc). The ROI while in operation keeps it going and keeps the "we need renewables now" crowd focused on (someone elses) goal(s) :) The oil and gas industries have already started transfering ownership to smaller companies to bypass obligations, so the cycle continues, with new lithium mining just coming on the heels of two other unresolved climate catastrophes.

iso1631 4y ago
> It looks like insufficient bonds and bankruptcy just shifted cost burdens for cleanup to government. That's the goal of capitalism, privitise the profits, socialise the losses.
- _jvqe 4y ago
  I actually only looked at north america, knowing that it happens in every country that mines. Capitalism is not the scapegoat. https://e360.yale.edu/features/china-wrestles-with-the-toxic-aftermath-of-rare-earth-mining https://e360.yale.edu/features/china-wrestles-with-the-toxic... The psuedo-environmentalists getting played like a 2-bit....crypto investor (not my 1st word choice, but still relevant) is funny though :p
  - asdff 4y ago
    Capitalism exists in every country today. You would not have chinese billionaires today if they were not a capitalistic country. They are socialist in almost name only these days; they are clearly not interested in redistributing wealth or favoring the health of the collective over the wealth of the elite. IMO there aren't many great examples of socialist governments, since many of the historical examples we've seen have been from a powerful elite using the mass appeal of the socialist message solely to put themselves in charge of an authoritarian state and use that position to further their own personal interests, versus to focus on collective benefits.
- kortilla 4y ago
  No it isn’t. Where does such a statement even come from? That’s like saying the goal of socialism is to starve everyone.
  - sophacles 4y ago
    In capitalism, attempts to change the status quo are always met with "but this will hurt profits!" In socialism, attempts to change the status quo are not met with "but fewer people will starve this way" Whether or not the GP is correct, it's silly to feign ignorance of how this idea could come about.
    - kortilla 4y ago
      >In capitalism, attempts to change the status quo are always met with "but this will hurt profits!" This is laughably stupid. The entire point of capitalism is to constantly disrupt the status quo of competitors to eat their margin. What you’re describing is some state run capitalism or state guaranteed monopolies where the only possible disruption could come from the government.

dsfyu404ed 4y ago

>Localised environmental destruction is such a pittance compared to global environmental catastrophe that its comical people even bring it up. While every environmentalist ever talks about "the greater good" they pouted and whined and tossed the plate on the floor when there was nuclear energy on it. You'll have to forgive the general public for not taking you (as a group) at your word.

strbean 4y ago
I think the issue with nuclear energy is the combined threats of local destruction and global environmental catastrophe. They may be overblown, but mining lithium to make electric cars doesn't increase the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation, for example.