5 ms·

> Aggressive and cynical environmental activism How is environmental activism cynical? My understanding is that RE mining is terrible for the environment. If I

by KPGv2 1y ago

> Aggressive and cynical environmental activism How is environmental activism cynical? My understanding is that RE mining is terrible for the environment. If I must cause some level of pollution, I don't think it's cynical to want it to happen far from where I am.

chii 1y ago
it's cynical because these activists who do it are using it for fame and clout; they still enjoy the benefits of these environmental destruction (which is simply exported else where, or the costs borne by someone else other than them).
- LexiMax 1y ago
  What would be your definition of meaningful climate activism against rare earth elements? Or is this one of those "there is no ethical consumption, therefore everyone is a hypocrite and nobody can criticize anyone over anything" type gotchas?
  - seanmcdirmid 1y ago
    Rare earths are messy to refine on the cheap, and refining them without environmental damage is expensive. One reason China got a leg up on rare earths is they didn’t sweat the environmental damage for a long time (now they are sweating it which is one reason they are holding back exports, but the advantage is too good for the, to completely swear it off).
  - john_the_writer 1y ago
    Yes.. that.. If you are against oil and plastics, walk your talk. If you are against rare earth, walk your talk. If you have a degree in chem-eng, and you're building low plastic solutions, and you're critical, then you're being honest. Saying "no no no" but doing it on a new cell phone you know was built on rare earth is like a vegan giving a talk while sitting on their new leather couch.
- sofixa 1y ago
  I'm sorry, but how many activists have any fame or clout that they use in any way other than for causes ? I can only think of Greta Thunberg, but can't really remember her ever using her "fame and clout" for anything other than bringing attention to problems. When she signs a sponsorship deal, then we can talk, but until then...
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
jandrewrogers 1y ago
The is an enormous amount of environmental activism that exists to achieve an ideological result, it has nothing to do with science or a reasonable analysis of tradeoffs. They cynically exploit people’s ignorance of the subject to justify their actions. A well-known example of this were regulations that require super-low arsenic levels in water. The thresholds were set extremely low, far below natural levels in most mining districts. The proposed limits were so low that ironically it would put some populations at risk of arsenic deficiency — arsenic is an essential micronutrient in animal biology, much of which comes from water. The people pushing to set levels so absurdly low were anti-mining activists. If you operate a mine, that benchmark for water quality is now your problem, even if the natural levels are much higher. This puts the mining operation in the somewhat intractable position of remediating the arsenic levels of ambient nature as a pre-condition of mining. You can’t just ensure the arsenic is at the level it was when you found it, you have to reduce to some idealized standard that can be intractably expensive to meet and has no scientific basis. It is exploitive and ugly by people that don’t care about the long-term implications as long as it serves their short-term ideological purpose. Civilization requires mining, it does little to help the environment by exporting it to other countries. I’m a major nature lover and conservationist, grew up in remote rural areas, and spend more time in the deep wilderness than most, but I am also a relevant scientist by training. The amount of scientific malpractice that happens under the pretext of “saving the environment” in the US is pretty damn gross. There are good people inside the Department of the Interior that try to mitigate the worst excesses but the onslaught is unrelenting. On the specific point of rare earth mining, the chemistry of rare earth ores are naturally unpleasant, much like gold and silver ores. For historical reasons, the massive deposits of gold and silver in the US were developed before any real regulations. Some of those made quite a mess (see: silver mines of Idaho). Modern versions run quite clean but the hurdles to opening new mines are so prohibitively expensive that the US mostly only still operates the grandfathered pre-regulation mines. REE mining has none of these advantages. The demand for REE is almost entirely modern, so none of it was grandfathered in. I’m sure the US could operate them at a level that is adequately clean but there is a huge contingent of activists that are against all mining and refining on principle and use the myriad levers created by policy over the last several decades to make sure that never happens in the US. That said, a few months ago the US government announced a strategic investment in the largest REE deposit in the world, which happens to be in the US but has spent most of its time in bankruptcy. I have to imagine that the intention is to streamline production under some kind of exemption.
aksss 1y ago
> How is environmental activism cynical? In this context, because the environmental activists don't want an end to their lifestyle products or especially the pillars of modern civilization (plastic, concrete, fertilizer, steel), they just want the costs to be borne by poorer countries, which in turn have less responsible resource extraction regulations than the developed world, which is WORSE for the environment on net. The environmental activists aren't arguing for responsible resource extraction at home, they effectuate the ban of resource extraction at home, and only at home. The global appetite for energy and resources doesn't recede because you choose not to mine, the mining is just done elsewhere. In China, in the Congo, etc. True concern for the environment would mean that each consumer (at least the largest ones) should be stewarding their own extraction requirements. The endless lawsuits, protests, and rhetoric often make onshoring impossible.

by KPGv2 1y ago

chii 1y ago

it's cynical because these activists who do it are using it for fame and clout; they still enjoy the benefits of these environmental destruction (which is simply exported else where, or the costs borne by someone else other than them).

LexiMax 1y ago
What would be your definition of meaningful climate activism against rare earth elements? Or is this one of those "there is no ethical consumption, therefore everyone is a hypocrite and nobody can criticize anyone over anything" type gotchas?
- seanmcdirmid 1y ago
  Rare earths are messy to refine on the cheap, and refining them without environmental damage is expensive. One reason China got a leg up on rare earths is they didn’t sweat the environmental damage for a long time (now they are sweating it which is one reason they are holding back exports, but the advantage is too good for the, to completely swear it off).
- john_the_writer 1y ago
  Yes.. that.. If you are against oil and plastics, walk your talk. If you are against rare earth, walk your talk. If you have a degree in chem-eng, and you're building low plastic solutions, and you're critical, then you're being honest. Saying "no no no" but doing it on a new cell phone you know was built on rare earth is like a vegan giving a talk while sitting on their new leather couch.
sofixa 1y ago
I'm sorry, but how many activists have any fame or clout that they use in any way other than for causes ? I can only think of Greta Thunberg, but can't really remember her ever using her "fame and clout" for anything other than bringing attention to problems. When she signs a sponsorship deal, then we can talk, but until then...
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

jandrewrogers 1y ago

The is an enormous amount of environmental activism that exists to achieve an ideological result, it has nothing to do with science or a reasonable analysis of tradeoffs. They cynically exploit people’s ignorance of the subject to justify their actions. A well-known example of this were regulations that require super-low arsenic levels in water. The thresholds were set extremely low, far below natural levels in most mining districts. The proposed limits were so low that ironically it would put some populations at risk of arsenic deficiency — arsenic is an essential micronutrient in animal biology, much of which comes from water. The people pushing to set levels so absurdly low were anti-mining activists. If you operate a mine, that benchmark for water quality is now your problem, even if the natural levels are much higher. This puts the mining operation in the somewhat intractable position of remediating the arsenic levels of ambient nature as a pre-condition of mining. You can’t just ensure the arsenic is at the level it was when you found it, you have to reduce to some idealized standard that can be intractably expensive to meet and has no scientific basis. It is exploitive and ugly by people that don’t care about the long-term implications as long as it serves their short-term ideological purpose. Civilization requires mining, it does little to help the environment by exporting it to other countries. I’m a major nature lover and conservationist, grew up in remote rural areas, and spend more time in the deep wilderness than most, but I am also a relevant scientist by training. The amount of scientific malpractice that happens under the pretext of “saving the environment” in the US is pretty damn gross. There are good people inside the Department of the Interior that try to mitigate the worst excesses but the onslaught is unrelenting. On the specific point of rare earth mining, the chemistry of rare earth ores are naturally unpleasant, much like gold and silver ores. For historical reasons, the massive deposits of gold and silver in the US were developed before any real regulations. Some of those made quite a mess (see: silver mines of Idaho). Modern versions run quite clean but the hurdles to opening new mines are so prohibitively expensive that the US mostly only still operates the grandfathered pre-regulation mines. REE mining has none of these advantages. The demand for REE is almost entirely modern, so none of it was grandfathered in. I’m sure the US could operate them at a level that is adequately clean but there is a huge contingent of activists that are against all mining and refining on principle and use the myriad levers created by policy over the last several decades to make sure that never happens in the US. That said, a few months ago the US government announced a strategic investment in the largest REE deposit in the world, which happens to be in the US but has spent most of its time in bankruptcy. I have to imagine that the intention is to streamline production under some kind of exemption.

aksss 1y ago

> How is environmental activism cynical? In this context, because the environmental activists don't want an end to their lifestyle products or especially the pillars of modern civilization (plastic, concrete, fertilizer, steel), they just want the costs to be borne by poorer countries, which in turn have less responsible resource extraction regulations than the developed world, which is WORSE for the environment on net. The environmental activists aren't arguing for responsible resource extraction at home, they effectuate the ban of resource extraction at home, and only at home. The global appetite for energy and resources doesn't recede because you choose not to mine, the mining is just done elsewhere. In China, in the Congo, etc. True concern for the environment would mean that each consumer (at least the largest ones) should be stewarding their own extraction requirements. The endless lawsuits, protests, and rhetoric often make onshoring impossible.