7 ms·

Dog whistling. The phrase "green energy transition" is mentioned only in the headline, and is completely irrelavent to the point being made in article, which i

by flgb 2y ago

Dog whistling. The phrase "green energy transition" is mentioned only in the headline, and is completely irrelavent to the point being made in article, which is that unregulated mining in poor developing countries is bad.

defrost 2y ago
As a point of order, and especially with most (not all) rare earth elements it's not the > unregulated mining in poor developing countries that's the worst part of the chain, it's the processing of concentrates. With, say, lithium for batteries a great deal of the mining takes place in Australia and that mining produces a spodumene concentrate which is shipped onwards for processing - which creates acid lakes in holding dams and low level radioactive waste as a by product. This has recently occured on location in countries such as China and Malaysia : https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/economics/article/3242368/malaysias-rare-earths-ambition-fuels-chinese-displeasure-fears-betrayal-cries-over-radioactive-waste https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/economics/article/3242368/mal... https://apnews.com/article/malaysia-australia-mining-lynas-radiation-be6b858a97caa316a15a0c21e85caaaa https://apnews.com/article/malaysia-australia-mining-lynas-r... but has recently expanded to locations in Australia and (soon) Texas and other US states.
rsolva 2y ago
OP here, I thought it was relevant as alot of the output goes to production of windmills and electric cars (motors). I am genuinely worried about the squeeze we are in now between conserving and protecting nature and transitioning away from fossil fules. I am active in the green party i Norway where we are fighting to wind down our oil production in a responsible and controlled maner. But alot of the new non-fossil energy production is now added to the existing energy mix, not replacing fossil fuels. Close by where I live (45 min drive), Google is building a huge server park that will require approximately 5% of Norways total electricity production. The region does not have enough power and energy companies are now in a frenzy to build solar parks along the delicate norwegian coastline in the south. This will mostly go to cover the needs of Googles new datacenter, not replace fossil fuels in any way. Just because someone calls something "green" does not automatically make it so.
- Scarblac 2y ago
  > But alot of the new non-fossil energy production is now added to the existing energy mix, not replacing fossil fuels I agree completely. Global CO2 output is still increasing, afaik, despite all the work on alternatives so far. We need much more emphasis on using less energy.
  - ZeroGravitas 2y ago
    I'm a fan of efficiency, but don't think "using less energy" is a particularly useful metric when that energy can come from sources with radically different costs and downsides. Happily, the most effective way to use less energy is to electrify with renewables, which is a major part of the green transition
    - Scarblac 2y ago
      > I'm a fan of efficiency, but don't think "using less energy" is a particularly useful metric when that energy can come from sources with radically different costs and downsides. That are often somewhat fungible. Using less is always good.
  - bryanlarsen 2y ago
    2024 is predicted to be the first year with a decrease in CO2 emissions.
  - slowmovintarget 2y ago
    Good luck fighting the AI compute gold rush. It's going to be worse than bitcoin mining, as these compute cycles actually do something.
  - hackerlight 2y ago
    > We need much more emphasis on using less energy. This might be self-sabotaging in that it helps climate change deniers get elected. Politicians have finite political capital and degrowth is unpopular. Better use political capital for sustainable growth and accelerating renewables. Win-win narratives are the only thing that work politically. Plus I don't think degrowth is even necessary. There isn't a zero-sum tradeoff between growth and emissions. https://twitter.com/MaxCRoser/status/1771162980954079621 https://twitter.com/MaxCRoser/status/1771162980954079621
shermozle 2y ago
Don't worry. Oil and gas have no negative impacts from their extraction!
- elcritch 2y ago
  Exactly, it needs to be about the relative impacts of each. Extracting oil and gas produces lots of toxic and carcinogens for every unit which is used just once. In theory rare earth metals produce toxic waste but have a longer lifetime and smaller concentrations even then. Not to mention the rise in recycling of these materials.
mc32 2y ago
Dog whistle is a facile retort without substance. It’s like when someone says back to you “greenwashing” it doesn’t mean anything. Dogwhistling doesn’t mean anything. What OP is talking about is total impact of renewables. Just because renewables are the future and on paper are less polluting does not mean they are currently less polluting when everything is taken into account and people need to realize that. Transitions are messy, disrupting and during a period are less efficient than what they replace.
- sunshinesnacks 2y ago
  Just because you imply they might be more polluting when everything is taken into account doesn’t mean they are. I challenge you to find a credible source that shows they are.
jmclnx 2y ago
>unregulated mining in poor developing countries is bad But we all know that will never stop :( Bribe a few pols and off we go. For context look at e-waste which is being dumped into poor countries. People there are working in the dumps striping the waste for valuable items like gold and living on the edge of starvation. Until there is a worldwide enforceable environmental laws, we will see these mines popping up all over the place.

by flgb 2y ago

defrost 2y ago

As a point of order, and especially with most (not all) rare earth elements it's not the > unregulated mining in poor developing countries that's the worst part of the chain, it's the processing of concentrates. With, say, lithium for batteries a great deal of the mining takes place in Australia and that mining produces a spodumene concentrate which is shipped onwards for processing - which creates acid lakes in holding dams and low level radioactive waste as a by product. This has recently occured on location in countries such as China and Malaysia : https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/economics/article/3242368/malaysias-rare-earths-ambition-fuels-chinese-displeasure-fears-betrayal-cries-over-radioactive-waste https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/economics/article/3242368/mal... https://apnews.com/article/malaysia-australia-mining-lynas-radiation-be6b858a97caa316a15a0c21e85caaaa https://apnews.com/article/malaysia-australia-mining-lynas-r... but has recently expanded to locations in Australia and (soon) Texas and other US states.

rsolva 2y ago

OP here, I thought it was relevant as alot of the output goes to production of windmills and electric cars (motors). I am genuinely worried about the squeeze we are in now between conserving and protecting nature and transitioning away from fossil fules. I am active in the green party i Norway where we are fighting to wind down our oil production in a responsible and controlled maner. But alot of the new non-fossil energy production is now added to the existing energy mix, not replacing fossil fuels. Close by where I live (45 min drive), Google is building a huge server park that will require approximately 5% of Norways total electricity production. The region does not have enough power and energy companies are now in a frenzy to build solar parks along the delicate norwegian coastline in the south. This will mostly go to cover the needs of Googles new datacenter, not replace fossil fuels in any way. Just because someone calls something "green" does not automatically make it so.

Scarblac 2y ago
> But alot of the new non-fossil energy production is now added to the existing energy mix, not replacing fossil fuels I agree completely. Global CO2 output is still increasing, afaik, despite all the work on alternatives so far. We need much more emphasis on using less energy.
- ZeroGravitas 2y ago
  I'm a fan of efficiency, but don't think "using less energy" is a particularly useful metric when that energy can come from sources with radically different costs and downsides. Happily, the most effective way to use less energy is to electrify with renewables, which is a major part of the green transition
  - Scarblac 2y ago
    > I'm a fan of efficiency, but don't think "using less energy" is a particularly useful metric when that energy can come from sources with radically different costs and downsides. That are often somewhat fungible. Using less is always good.
- bryanlarsen 2y ago
  2024 is predicted to be the first year with a decrease in CO2 emissions.
- slowmovintarget 2y ago
  Good luck fighting the AI compute gold rush. It's going to be worse than bitcoin mining, as these compute cycles actually do something.
- hackerlight 2y ago
  > We need much more emphasis on using less energy. This might be self-sabotaging in that it helps climate change deniers get elected. Politicians have finite political capital and degrowth is unpopular. Better use political capital for sustainable growth and accelerating renewables. Win-win narratives are the only thing that work politically. Plus I don't think degrowth is even necessary. There isn't a zero-sum tradeoff between growth and emissions. https://twitter.com/MaxCRoser/status/1771162980954079621 https://twitter.com/MaxCRoser/status/1771162980954079621

shermozle 2y ago

Don't worry. Oil and gas have no negative impacts from their extraction!

elcritch 2y ago
Exactly, it needs to be about the relative impacts of each. Extracting oil and gas produces lots of toxic and carcinogens for every unit which is used just once. In theory rare earth metals produce toxic waste but have a longer lifetime and smaller concentrations even then. Not to mention the rise in recycling of these materials.

mc32 2y ago

Dog whistle is a facile retort without substance. It’s like when someone says back to you “greenwashing” it doesn’t mean anything. Dogwhistling doesn’t mean anything. What OP is talking about is total impact of renewables. Just because renewables are the future and on paper are less polluting does not mean they are currently less polluting when everything is taken into account and people need to realize that. Transitions are messy, disrupting and during a period are less efficient than what they replace.

sunshinesnacks 2y ago
Just because you imply they might be more polluting when everything is taken into account doesn’t mean they are. I challenge you to find a credible source that shows they are.

jmclnx 2y ago

>unregulated mining in poor developing countries is bad But we all know that will never stop :( Bribe a few pols and off we go. For context look at e-waste which is being dumped into poor countries. People there are working in the dumps striping the waste for valuable items like gold and living on the edge of starvation. Until there is a worldwide enforceable environmental laws, we will see these mines popping up all over the place.