4 ms·

Apparently it as high as 150t of ore per 1t of copper, and yeah it's an environmental disaster. [1] I can't help but feel this discoveries are such a mixed bles

Apparently it as high as 150t of ore per 1t of copper, and yeah it's an environmental disaster. [1] I can't help but feel this discoveries are such a mixed blessing for developing countries, when even Western countries do such a bad job of controlling for bad environmental outcomes. [2] As with rare earths, it feels like a good way to get clean outcomes at home and export and concentrate the environmental implications abroad. [3] [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5579155/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5579155/ [2] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/09/copper-mining-reveals-clean-energy-dark-side https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/09/copper-minin... [3] https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20150402-the-worst-place-on-earth https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20150402-the-worst-place-...

schiffern 3y ago
Thanks. I probably understated my case, but I try to err on that side. So the question becomes, how do we fix the environmental optimization algorithm? Then it hits me: "It's the price signals, stupid." It's only economical to dig 150 tonnes instead of 5 because copper is 30x as expensive. So if your environmental optimization goal is simply set to "reduce cost," then these factors cancel out, and you 'auto-magically' optimize for minimum environmental impact. :D Obviously I'm simplifying here and there are cost differences in processing copper vs iron too, but those differences should also "flow through" and get weighted appropriately. The problems start when externalities (pollution shirking) and middle-men (rent seeking) enter the room. Both of these distort the price signals, which should (but rarely do!) convey the true underlying environmental cost.
- arcticbull 3y ago
  > The problems begin when externalities (pollution) and rent seeking (middle-men) enter the room. Both of these distort the price signals, which should (but rarely do!) convey the true environmental cost. This is my opinion as well.
- abeppu 3y ago
  > The problems start when externalities (pollution shirking) and middle-men (rent seeking) enter the room. Both of these distort the price signals, which should (but rarely do!) convey the true underlying environmental cost. This makes it sound like externalities are the distortion rather than the primary driver of the environmental cost. This is not my area, but my understanding is that b/c environmental systems almost never have an "owner" who is a party to transactions/development, the environmental costs are almost entirely externalities. What are the important underlying environmental costs which _aren't_ externalities?
  - schiffern 3y ago
    I don't think we disagree on this point. Externalities are both "a [pricing] distortion" and also "the primary driver of the environmental cost." The former is what allows the latter problem to persist, despite the efficient market hypothesis.
schiffern 3y ago
>get clean outcomes at home and export and concentrate the environmental implications abroad Yes this is a huge problem. If your inputs tell the market that certain humans or certain biomes are economically less valuable than others (eg through statistical life valuations, or environmental regulation arbitrage), then the market genie will say "you asked for it you got it!" and 'efficiently' re-allocate pollution to those poor countries. :-\ Markets are fundamentally a tool for distributed computation, and "garbage in, garbage out" still applies.

schiffern 3y ago

Thanks. I probably understated my case, but I try to err on that side. So the question becomes, how do we fix the environmental optimization algorithm? Then it hits me: "It's the price signals, stupid." It's only economical to dig 150 tonnes instead of 5 because copper is 30x as expensive. So if your environmental optimization goal is simply set to "reduce cost," then these factors cancel out, and you 'auto-magically' optimize for minimum environmental impact. :D Obviously I'm simplifying here and there are cost differences in processing copper vs iron too, but those differences should also "flow through" and get weighted appropriately. The problems start when externalities (pollution shirking) and middle-men (rent seeking) enter the room. Both of these distort the price signals, which should (but rarely do!) convey the true underlying environmental cost.

arcticbull 3y ago
> The problems begin when externalities (pollution) and rent seeking (middle-men) enter the room. Both of these distort the price signals, which should (but rarely do!) convey the true environmental cost. This is my opinion as well.
abeppu 3y ago
> The problems start when externalities (pollution shirking) and middle-men (rent seeking) enter the room. Both of these distort the price signals, which should (but rarely do!) convey the true underlying environmental cost. This makes it sound like externalities are the distortion rather than the primary driver of the environmental cost. This is not my area, but my understanding is that b/c environmental systems almost never have an "owner" who is a party to transactions/development, the environmental costs are almost entirely externalities. What are the important underlying environmental costs which _aren't_ externalities?
- schiffern 3y ago
  I don't think we disagree on this point. Externalities are both "a [pricing] distortion" and also "the primary driver of the environmental cost." The former is what allows the latter problem to persist, despite the efficient market hypothesis.

schiffern 3y ago

>get clean outcomes at home and export and concentrate the environmental implications abroad Yes this is a huge problem. If your inputs tell the market that certain humans or certain biomes are economically less valuable than others (eg through statistical life valuations, or environmental regulation arbitrage), then the market genie will say "you asked for it you got it!" and 'efficiently' re-allocate pollution to those poor countries. :-\ Markets are fundamentally a tool for distributed computation, and "garbage in, garbage out" still applies.