Environmentalism and Green Energy vs. Mining

[PDXTabs]

And not only that, but population growth is decreasing rapidly and will start moving into negative growth territory in the next decade or so:

https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth

So we'll see a natural stasis and eventual tapering off of consumption.   Here's the very cool part - as populations move from 3rd world status and into 2nd or 1st world status, population rates decrease dramatically.  Which has the rather awesome benefit of this - the entire world benefits when poor populations become wealthier.  That's pretty awesome and reason for hope and something to celebrate.

I read Our Final Warning by Mark Lynas, I'm not at all convinced. The richest countries use 13x the natural resources of the poorest (per capita). Furthermore, they do it by extracting those resources from the poor ones. US progressives hate exploiting poor brown people, unless they get a Tesla out of it. Unless the developing countries slaughter a bunch of their kids raising up poor countries to be on the level of rich countries will not work. The decrease in population will come too late. I do love a good reference to the 2nd world though, you don't see that much now with the USSR gone. We need to be pushing 1st world living standards down to 2nd world, but good luck getting any politician ever to run on that platform.

But you are right about one thing: the earth will eventually find homeostasis. The earth doesn't care if half of the population starves to death because we ruin a bunch of top-soil.

[Tyson]

And not only that, but population growth is decreasing rapidly and will start moving into negative growth territory in the next decade or so:

https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth

So we'll see a natural stasis and eventual tapering off of consumption.   Here's the very cool part - as populations move from 3rd world status and into 2nd or 1st world status, population rates decrease dramatically.  Which has the rather awesome benefit of this - the entire world benefits when poor populations become wealthier.  That's pretty awesome and reason for hope and something to celebrate.

I read Our Final Warning by Mark Lynas, I'm not at all convinced. The richest countries use 13x the natural resources of the poorest (per capita). Furthermore, they do it by extracting those resources from the poor ones. US progressives hate exploiting poor brown people, unless they get a Tesla out of it. Unless the developing countries slaughter a bunch of their kids raising up poor countries to be on the level of rich countries will not work. The decrease in population will come too late. I do love a good reference to the 2nd world though, you don't see that much now with the USSR gone. We need to be pushing 1st world living standards down to 2nd world, but good luck getting any politician ever to run on that platform.

But you are right about one thing: the earth will eventually find homeostasis. The earth doesn't care if half of the population starves to death because we ruin a bunch of top-soil.

It seems as though your mind is set against any idea of hope for change for the better.  To me, first we have to get off fossil fuels, that's the most urgent change needed.  Once we do that, then the next biggest problem is population growth because if we keep growing then it's very difficult to come up with clever solution to unlimited growth.  But like I said, it's a problem that's taking care of itself. 

Re: the fact that there's rich countries and poor countries, well so what?  You can see that hunger is down across the world - https://ourworldindata.org/hunger-and-undernourishment

And that's going to continue because we're getting more efficient at producing food.  And it will start to REALLY drop once we hit negative population growth. 

Also, I do think that moving to renewables is the first step toward creating a much better world of the future.  It's necessary but not sufficient.  However there's a lot of other reasons for hope. 

You talk about 'exploiting' but in fact it's just trade.  Rich countries pay the developing world for things that they own.  What those 'exploited' countries do with that money is up to them.  Looking at what's happened in China and India over the last 20 years, clearly they are moving in the right direction.  Things are MUCH better in those 2 countries than it was 20 years ago.  And IMO they've also hit a tipping point where their upward momentum will continue and probably at an accelerated rate. 

Conversations like this always amuse me.  People that say things are so terrible nowadays don't know history.  Or if they do, they don't quite understand just how brutally bad life was in the past.  This is by far the best time to be alive and not just for the rich countries. 

I could show you a lot more data that proves my point, but I doubt the data would be convincing to someone like you (someone with a negativity bias).  Which is fine, not everyone needs to be an optimist or hopeful for the future.  I know I used to be a lot more pessimistic in the past.  But things really are getting better.  So I've adapted my world view to accommodate the more recent data.  Not everyone will update their beliefs in the face of new information and that's fine. 

[PDXTabs]

And not only that, but population growth is decreasing rapidly and will start moving into negative growth territory in the next decade or so:

https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth

So we'll see a natural stasis and eventual tapering off of consumption.   Here's the very cool part - as populations move from 3rd world status and into 2nd or 1st world status, population rates decrease dramatically.  Which has the rather awesome benefit of this - the entire world benefits when poor populations become wealthier.  That's pretty awesome and reason for hope and something to celebrate.

I read Our Final Warning by Mark Lynas, I'm not at all convinced. The richest countries use 13x the natural resources of the poorest (per capita). Furthermore, they do it by extracting those resources from the poor ones. US progressives hate exploiting poor brown people, unless they get a Tesla out of it. Unless the developing countries slaughter a bunch of their kids raising up poor countries to be on the level of rich countries will not work. The decrease in population will come too late. I do love a good reference to the 2nd world though, you don't see that much now with the USSR gone. We need to be pushing 1st world living standards down to 2nd world, but good luck getting any politician ever to run on that platform.

But you are right about one thing: the earth will eventually find homeostasis. The earth doesn't care if half of the population starves to death because we ruin a bunch of top-soil.

It seems as though your mind is set against any idea of hope for change for the better.  To me, first we have to get off fossil fuels, that's the most urgent change needed.  Once we do that, then the next biggest problem is population growth because if we keep growing then it's very difficult to come up with clever solution to unlimited growth.  But like I said, it's a problem that's taking care of itself. 

I was optimistic, until the US pulled out of the Paris agreement and even the countries that are still in it are failing to meet their obligations to poor countries. Biden doesn't have any policies in play that would actually get the USA back on track to hit the Paris goals.

Also, I do think that moving to renewables is the first step toward creating a much better world of the future.  It's necessary but not sufficient.  However there's a lot of other reasons for hope. 

I agree entirely, I just don't know why we have to devote a large percentage of the earths resources to private automobile ownership. I'm unconvinced that it is mathematically possible, I view that as realistic, not pessimistic.

You talk about 'exploiting' but in fact it's just trade.  Rich countries pay the developing world for things that they own.  What those 'exploited' countries do with that money is up to them.  Looking at what's happened in China and India over the last 20 years, clearly they are moving in the right direction.  Things are MUCH better in those 2 countries than it was 20 years ago.  And IMO they've also hit a tipping point where their upward momentum will continue and probably at an accelerated rate. 

I mostly agree with you about poor countries selling their resources, I was just using exploited as short hand for "Urgent action is needed to ensure that current material needs do not lead to over-extraction of resources and further degradation of the environment... The lifestyles of people in the richest nations are heavily dependent on resources extracted from poorer countries" which is what my link to the UN said.

Conversations like this always amuse me.  People that say things are so terrible nowadays don't know history.  Or if they do, they don't quite understand just how brutally bad life was in the past.  This is by far the best time to be alive and not just for the rich countries. 

I could show you a lot more data that proves my point, but I doubt the data would be convincing to someone like you (someone with a negativity bias).  Which is fine, not everyone needs to be an optimist or hopeful for the future.  I know I used to be a lot more pessimistic in the past.  But things really are getting better.  So I've adapted my world view to accommodate the more recent data.  Not everyone will update their beliefs in the face of new information and that's fine.

Conversations like this always amuse me. How good life is today is not an indicator that it is sustainable. If I drain my 401k and max out my credit cards I could live a really really great life, until I couldn't. I'm willing to be optimistic just as soon as I have a reason to be.

[Tyson]

So we do agree on some things and disagree on others.  Which like I said is fine, I'm perfectly OK with that.

I am curious though, what would be some workable, realistic solutions you would advocate for to fix some of these problems?  I assume you'll say some variant of 'consume less'.  And as you pointed out before, rich countries use a lot more resources than poor countries.  So would you advocate that rich countries become poor countries?  And if so, how would that actually work?

[PDXTabs]

I am curious though, what would be some workable, realistic solutions you would advocate for to fix some of these problems?  I assume you'll say some variant of 'consume less'.  And as you pointed out before, rich countries use a lot more resources than poor countries.  So would you advocate that rich countries become poor countries?  And if so, how would that actually work?

I'm a strong advocate for a carbon tax. Just keep cranking it up until we hit our goals. Actually, I was briefly optimistic for the sliver of time where Republicans seemed on board, but now US progressives seem unwilling to tax the poor that way, because poor people like cheap gas too.

[Tyson]

I am curious though, what would be some workable, realistic solutions you would advocate for to fix some of these problems?  I assume you'll say some variant of 'consume less'.  And as you pointed out before, rich countries use a lot more resources than poor countries.  So would you advocate that rich countries become poor countries?  And if so, how would that actually work?

I'm a strong advocate for a carbon tax. Just keep cranking it up until we hit our goals. Actually, I was briefly optimistic for the sliver of time where Republicans seemed on board, but now US progressives seem unwilling to tax the poor that way, because poor people like cheap gas too.

Ah, OK.  I also think a carbon tax makes a lot of sense. 

[PDXTabs]

This happened to pop up in my podcast this morning (full interview here), McKinsey: The net-zero transition: What it would cost, what it could bring:

Capital spending on physical assets for energy and land-use systems in the net-zero transition between 2021 and 2050
would amount to about $275 trillion, or $9.2 trillion per year on average, an annual increase of as much as $3.5 trillion
from today. To put this increase in comparative terms, the $3.5 trillion is approximately equivalent, in 2020, to half of global
corporate profits, one-quarter of total tax revenue, and 7 percent of household spending. An additional $1 trillion of today’s
annual spend would, moreover, need to be reallocated from high-emissions to low-emissions assets. Accounting for expected
increases in spending, as incomes and populations grow, as well as for currently legislated transition policies, the required
increase in spending would be lower, but still about $1 trillion. The spending would be front-loaded, rising from 6.8 percent of
GDP today to as much as 8.8 percent of GDP between 2026 and 2030 before falling

You need to give them an email address to download the report.

[Just Joe]

But it's silly to think that minimizing consumption will work on a large scale.  The good news is that we won't have to.  Once we are converted to 100% renewables then our consumption is not tied to burning up the atmosphere.  And once that is true, then what does it matter if we run the air conditioner 24/7?  If we have an EV with 100% renewable charging, what does it matter if we drive everywhere all the time?  It doesn't.   It's a paradigm shift, and I personally can't wait for it to happen.

I haven't read to the end of the tread and someone will probably have something to say about your comment. If not - we will never be able to throw caution to the wind. Pollution from producing energy is one problem. So is industrial waste, plastic waste that apparently never goes away, and resource scarcity.

My family tries to get the last mile out of everything we buy. Hopefully the house air conditioner system will last another 10+ years or until at least when new systems are so efficient that using the old system is reckless and wasteful.

EVs maybe energy efficient compared to ICE vehicles but they still wear out - and if the past is any indicator - a fair number will wear out from neglect and abuse before they actually wear out. I'm not convinced that the average consumer has any interest in a car that lasts 25+ years anyhow. People seem to get tired of their things before their things are truly beyond repair. Or as I've seen with more than a few individuals - neglect their things so they can justify replacing their things.

[GodlessCommie]

EVs maybe energy efficient compared to ICE vehicles but they still wear out - and if the past is any indicator - a fair number will wear out from neglect and abuse before they actually wear out. I'm not convinced that the average consumer has any interest in a car that lasts 25+ years anyhow. People seem to get tired of their things before their things are truly beyond repair. Or as I've seen with more than a few individuals - neglect their things so they can justify replacing their things.

Yes - but 25+ years of useful life doesn't have to be 25+ years of useful life with one owner. EVs also require much less maintenance - skipping oil changes will do no harm, as there are no oil changes.

But I do agree, we can't EV our way out of the climate crisis, reduced consumption must be a part of the equation. We can reduce it voluntarily, in a managed way - or involuntarily, in a much more chaotic way.

[zolotiyeruki]

EVs maybe energy efficient compared to ICE vehicles but they still wear out - and if the past is any indicator - a fair number will wear out from neglect and abuse before they actually wear out. I'm not convinced that the average consumer has any interest in a car that lasts 25+ years anyhow. People seem to get tired of their things before their things are truly beyond repair. Or as I've seen with more than a few individuals - neglect their things so they can justify replacing their things.

Yes - but 25+ years of useful life doesn't have to be 25+ years of useful life with one owner. EVs also require much less maintenance - skipping oil changes will do no harm, as there are no oil changes.

But I do agree, we can't EV our way out of the climate crisis, reduced consumption must be a part of the equation. We can reduce it voluntarily, in a managed way - or involuntarily, in a much more chaotic way.

I have a greater concern that electric cars will be obsoleted more than they'll wear out.  Sure, ICEs have vastly more parts and pieces and fluids and stuff to pump fluids and such. But when something goes wrong, it's easy to buy a brand new part to replace the old.  The opposite is true for all the electronics--if one of those fails, you either buy one from the manufacturer (if they still make/stock them) or find one in a junk yard.

Beyond parts support, it doesn't seem to matter whether a car is capable of lasting 25 or even 50 years, because there is a perception that anything older than X years is a death trap because it wasn't designed to meet the perpetually-intensifying crash test standards from IIHS.

[Tyson]

These other problems with waste are much less urgent than the fact that we are about to burn ourselves up with gas/oil/coal.  EV's and renewables seem like the fastest most efficient means to solve that urgent crisis.  To me it makes sense to move to the less-bad option than to do nothing.

Given some of the concerns about waste raised here, what would be some other, better solutions that are better than switching to renewables and EVs?

[PDXTabs]

Given some of the concerns about waste raised here, what would be some other, better solutions that are better than switching to renewables and EVs?

I like renewables and EVs, but I also want to see:
1. Road Diets for all stroads starting tomorrow.
2. A return to Streetcar Suburbs.
3. The immediate ban of single family zoning across the entire country.
4. The immediate ban on parking minimums across the entire country.
5. Tax the fuck out of cars.
EDITed to add: 6. A ban on plumbing new natural gas lines to residences because the fugitive emissions are huge.

[zolotiyeruki]

These other problems with waste are much less urgent than the fact that we are about to burn ourselves up with gas/oil/coal.  EV's and renewables seem like the fastest most efficient means to solve that urgent crisis.  To me it makes sense to move to the less-bad option than to do nothing.

Given some of the concerns about waste raised here, what would be some other, better solutions that are better than switching to renewables and EVs?

Without solving the energy storage issue, I am concerned that charging down the path of replacing fossil fuels with renewables will plunge us into the situation that California frequently finds itself in--very high electricity rates and occasional rolling blackouts.

[Just Joe]

EVs maybe energy efficient compared to ICE vehicles but they still wear out - and if the past is any indicator - a fair number will wear out from neglect and abuse before they actually wear out. I'm not convinced that the average consumer has any interest in a car that lasts 25+ years anyhow. People seem to get tired of their things before their things are truly beyond repair. Or as I've seen with more than a few individuals - neglect their things so they can justify replacing their things.

Yes - but 25+ years of useful life doesn't have to be 25+ years of useful life with one owner. EVs also require much less maintenance - skipping oil changes will do no harm, as there are no oil changes.

But I do agree, we can't EV our way out of the climate crisis, reduced consumption must be a part of the equation. We can reduce it voluntarily, in a managed way - or involuntarily, in a much more chaotic way.

I have a greater concern that electric cars will be obsoleted more than they'll wear out.  Sure, ICEs have vastly more parts and pieces and fluids and stuff to pump fluids and such. But when something goes wrong, it's easy to buy a brand new part to replace the old.  The opposite is true for all the electronics--if one of those fails, you either buy one from the manufacturer (if they still make/stock them) or find one in a junk yard.

Beyond parts support, it doesn't seem to matter whether a car is capable of lasting 25 or even 50 years, because there is a perception that anything older than X years is a death trap because it wasn't designed to meet the perpetually-intensifying crash test standards from IIHS.

This is kind of where I am. I have a suspicion that any EV that needs a new battery will be retired.

A used battery is $3500 from a wrecked car for a Nissan Leaf for an example. We live in a country where supposedly a large number of people are challenged to raise $500 on short notice. What happens if the shop says their car needs a $5K battery? Most batteries can be broken down and repaired easily but not without a cost. $75 will buy on Nissan Leaf battery module which would yield 8 cells. Will that price go up or down when demand increases? eBikes retailers have said for years that replacement batteries will drop in cost with time. Not that I have seen. They are either the same price or slightly more in 2022. Fortunately my two bikes continue on for another season with four+ year old batteries.

Also in 2022 gadgets older than a few years do not receive updates for one reason or another. Tracfone tells me my 2019 smart phone needs to be retired because it is not a 5G phone. It is a 4G phone. I checked around and only RedPocket says they offer service in my area.

How many perfectly good computers could be rebuild using free Linux but get recycled instead. I've rejuvenated a dozen or more computers with Linux that had years of life left in them as general purpose computers. The average person doesn't even think about this.

I worry electric cars will exacerbate the e-waste problems.

[Just Joe]

I like renewables and EVs, but I also want to see:
1. Road Diets for all stroads starting tomorrow.
2. A return to Streetcar Suburbs.
3. The immediate ban of single family zoning across the entire country.
4. The immediate ban on parking minimums across the entire country.
5. Tax the fuck out of cars.
EDITed to add: 6. A ban on plumbing new natural gas lines to residences because the fugitive emissions are huge.

I'll second that, especially the streetcars. Let's add extensive bike path systems to the list. I'd pedal to work every day if I didn't have to compete with the cars. As it stands, my route (ever busier) is a race with the cars. Racing to get past the next dangerous intersection before the cars crowd me. Empty roads are bearable but with the end of COVID, the roads are busier than ever.

My DW might give riding a bicycle a chance but as it stands, riding a bike on the street scares the daylights out of her.

The average American suburban neighborhood bordered by stroads and franchise shopping and restaurants has no appeal to me and mine. Its part of why we choose to live on the edge of a smaller town. Give me a low traffic village please.

I would like to see people buy and keep their electric cars 15-20 years but people gotta spend, spend, spend. Styles, trends, 2% safer, car magazines and home shows. Too much short term thinking. Now extrapolate that to clothes, houses, cars, phones, computers, furniture, etc.

Obviously not everyone operates like this but some do. I know people IRL who do and the waste drives me crazy.

[Tyson]

Given some of the concerns about waste raised here, what would be some other, better solutions that are better than switching to renewables and EVs?

I like renewables and EVs, but I also want to see:
1. Road Diets for all stroads starting tomorrow.
2. A return to Streetcar Suburbs.
3. The immediate ban of single family zoning across the entire country.
4. The immediate ban on parking minimums across the entire country.
5. Tax the fuck out of cars.
EDITed to add: 6. A ban on plumbing new natural gas lines to residences because the fugitive emissions are huge.

I agree with all of this.  The 'car culture' in the US is ridiculous.  Now that I know what a stroad is, I can't stop seeing them everywhere I look! 

Also, too often people drive way too fast and way too impatient which makes things dangerous for everyone else, especially bikers and pedestrians.  The current infrastructure only encourages this type of thoughtless aggressiveness.  One thing they've started doing in Denver, that I really like, is putting bike lanes between the street parking spaces and the sidewalks. 

I think that banning single family homes is probably not feasible, but I do think that we need to strongly incentivize the sort of mixed use neighborhoods you see in Europe. 

Ban parking minimums probably a good idea, or at least get rid of 'parking lots' and force everything into multi-story parking garages.  I'd also lean heavily into subsidizing any/all work that can give us robo-taxis.  Basically this could let us take what Uber is doing, but to the next level.  I've gotten to the point tha I won't drive into downtown if I don't have to, I'd much rather Uber and not have to deal with parking.  Having something automated and cheaper would accelerate this type of change in basic driving behavior.

Tax the hell out of cars.  Yes.  And gas too.

[PDXTabs]

I think that banning single family homes is probably not feasible, but I do think that we need to strongly incentivize the sort of mixed use neighborhoods you see in Europe. 

I did not mean to ban single family homes, but what Oregon did where local municipalities can no longer create zoning plans where only single family housing is legal. I believe that California has done the same thing.*

EDITed to add my favorite YouTube video on the subject: The Suburbs Are Bleeding America Dry | Climate Town (feat. Not Just Bikes)

* - but I think it needs to be taken further

[gooki]

I'm as excited as most people about solar getting cheaper.  If "cheaper than peak natural gas" is a new thing, that's a step in the right direction, but it doesn't mean that it's a gamechanger quite yet.

Solar is far cheaper than peak natural gas. Solar energy is dirt cheap on the industrial scale $0.03 to $0.04 per kwh. That's an all inclusive price including installation, grid connection, financing, maintenance and profit.

[gooki]

But it's silly to think that minimizing consumption will work on a large scale.  The good news is that we won't have to.  Once we are converted to 100% renewables then our consumption is not tied to burning up the atmosphere.  And once that is true, then what does it matter if we run the air conditioner 24/7?  If we have an EV with 100% renewable charging, what does it matter if we drive everywhere all the time?  It doesn't.   It's a paradigm shift, and I personally can't wait for it to happen.

Well said. I hate waste, I'd love to see everyone who can bike to work etc etc. But people smarter than me realized you'll transition the world faster by making a better mouse traps that happen to be "green", vs trying to change the world on a societal level.

[Abe]

Read recently that zinc-based batteries are making a comeback and may be a substitute for lithium. Energy density is a bit lower, but zinc is much more easily obtained. For stationary use, it seems like a good substitute if it lasts long enough. If this pans out, I think transition to renewable energy will be accelerated.

[Radagast]

I've been seeing a lot of (silly seeming to me) protests, against lithium mining, against geothermal energy developments, against solar plants in the desert (admittedly roof top solar seems better, as it has no additional externalities at all), against all sorts of things which I don't see a reason for protesting. It seems hypocritical to me. The protesters depend upon the items they protest against, and there aren't alternatives because these are the alternatives. If the last of an endangered species dies in west Xinjiang and no environmentalist notices, does it yet live? Better by far to be upfront about these things. IMO it would be better for the US if we passed a law requiring no net imports of minerals. It would be best if consumers had to face the consequences of their consumption by dealing with the necessary mines, while the economy would get the benefit of mining jobs and economic diversification, and also the shorter supply chains would make the whole thing less fragile.

[Abe]

I've been seeing a lot of (silly seeming to me) protests, against lithium mining, against geothermal energy developments, against solar plants in the desert (admittedly roof top solar seems better, as it has no additional externalities at all), against all sorts of things which I don't see a reason for protesting. It seems hypocritical to me. The protesters depend upon the items they protest against, and there aren't alternatives because these are the alternatives. If the last of an endangered species dies in west Xinjiang and no environmentalist notices, does it yet live? Better by far to be upfront about these things. IMO it would be better for the US if we passed a law requiring no net imports of minerals. It would be best if consumers had to face the consequences of their consumption by dealing with the necessary mines, while the economy would get the benefit of mining jobs and economic diversification, and also the shorter supply chains would make the whole thing less fragile.

I agree - most people want to outsource whatever is involved in their daily plethora to someone else. People opposed to wind farms want someone else to live next to coal plants. People opposed to coal plants want someone else' random bird to lose its habitat for solar panels (because some bird is going to have to go, that's the nature of large-scale solar development), but they fail to see how many thousand times more birds will die from climate change.

I guess once we find the perfect, optimal solution for every solar and wind farm placement, we an all celebrate with the cockroaches that are left. 

[ministashy]

Personally, as a rabid environmentalist, I'd be happy with more mines IF said mines were less destructive to the local environment and weren't so completely horrific, health-wise, to the local residents.  I'm thinking of the proposed Pebble mine in Alaska that, if it went ahead, would have toxic tailing piles and other sludge that could conceivably leak and permanently destroy a multi-million dollar salmon fishing industry.  Or other mines that rely on open-pit techniques that destroy the land permanently - even if they 'put the earth back' once they're done (which often they don't), they usually have ruined the land for any farming, ranching, or other use (and again, they are irretrievably destroying local ecosystems, which thanks to habitat loss, are often the last refuges for multiple species).  Or pollute local aquifers and rivers to the detriment of anyone living downstream (see: Amazon gold mining, coal mining in Appalachia, etc., etc )

IF mining companies were actually willing to explore less-destructive methods of extraction and be held fully responsible for any potential damage they might cause (to the tune of non-dischargable insurance bonds in the millions or billions of dollars it would take to clean up after them, if they have any hazardous waste discharges/illegal disposal), I'd be a lot more onboard with new mines.  But of course, the companies don't want to do that.  They want to pull the good stuff out of the ground, and then take the profits and run and leave the local communities holding the bag for the destruction they cause.  This has been going on for several hundred years at this point, so I don't hold out a lot of hope for change.

[Tyson]

Personally, as a rabid environmentalist, I'd be happy with more mines IF said mines were less destructive to the local environment and weren't so completely horrific, health-wise, to the local residents.  I'm thinking of the proposed Pebble mine in Alaska that, if it went ahead, would have toxic tailing piles and other sludge that could conceivably leak and permanently destroy a multi-million dollar salmon fishing industry.  Or other mines that rely on open-pit techniques that destroy the land permanently - even if they 'put the earth back' once they're done (which often they don't), they usually have ruined the land for any farming, ranching, or other use (and again, they are irretrievably destroying local ecosystems, which thanks to habitat loss, are often the last refuges for multiple species).  Or pollute local aquifers and rivers to the detriment of anyone living downstream (see: Amazon gold mining, coal mining in Appalachia, etc., etc )

IF mining companies were actually willing to explore less-destructive methods of extraction and be held fully responsible for any potential damage they might cause (to the tune of non-dischargable insurance bonds in the millions or billions of dollars it would take to clean up after them, if they have any hazardous waste discharges/illegal disposal), I'd be a lot more onboard with new mines.  But of course, the companies don't want to do that.  They want to pull the good stuff out of the ground, and then take the profits and run and leave the local communities holding the bag for the destruction they cause.  This has been going on for several hundred years at this point, so I don't hold out a lot of hope for change.

Some recent VERY good news about batteries is we now know that they can be recycled and re-used with zero degradation to the battery performance.  Which means at a certain point we'll have all the battery material we need and we'll just be able to recycle the stuff already mined:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUS5s1tYp6g

[Fishindude]

Personally, as a rabid environmentalist, I'd be happy with more mines IF said mines were less destructive to the local environment and weren't so completely horrific, health-wise, to the local residents. 

Where I live in the midwest we have many old reclaimed coal mine properties that have been turned into public rec land and / or sold privately.   These are some of the most beautiful, gin clear lakes, best fishing holes and nicest forests around.   One area I frequent has over 100 small lakes and thousands of acres of woodlands all open to public, some of the best hunting and fishing area in the state.

At least mining stops at some point.  Row crop farming goes on forever leaving a barren landscape that will never support much wildlife.

[joemandadman189]

Personally, as a rabid environmentalist, I'd be happy with more mines IF said mines were less destructive to the local environment and weren't so completely horrific, health-wise, to the local residents.  I'm thinking of the proposed Pebble mine in Alaska that, if it went ahead, would have toxic tailing piles and other sludge that could conceivably leak and permanently destroy a multi-million dollar salmon fishing industry.  Or other mines that rely on open-pit techniques that destroy the land permanently - even if they 'put the earth back' once they're done (which often they don't), they usually have ruined the land for any farming, ranching, or other use (and again, they are irretrievably destroying local ecosystems, which thanks to habitat loss, are often the last refuges for multiple species).  Or pollute local aquifers and rivers to the detriment of anyone living downstream (see: Amazon gold mining, coal mining in Appalachia, etc., etc )

IF mining companies were actually willing to explore less-destructive methods of extraction and be held fully responsible for any potential damage they might cause (to the tune of non-dischargable insurance bonds in the millions or billions of dollars it would take to clean up after them, if they have any hazardous waste discharges/illegal disposal), I'd be a lot more onboard with new mines.  But of course, the companies don't want to do that.  They want to pull the good stuff out of the ground, and then take the profits and run and leave the local communities holding the bag for the destruction they cause.  This has been going on for several hundred years at this point, so I don't hold out a lot of hope for change.

I think you may be comparing existing abandoned mines, pre mid 1970s, in the US and mines permitted and constructed after the mid 1970s or mines being permitted/constructed today. Most of the Bolded text above relate to abandoned mines (at least in the USA). Today, to permit a mine can take a decade, or more. There are many factors but base line environmental studies must be completed to determine if any threatened or endangered species are present. Cultural studies are completed on federal lands to determine the presence of sites of archeological significance exist. Other studies include monitoring ground water for quality and seasonal variations and surface water flows for again quality and quantity all to set a baseline that needs to be maintained or mitigated during and after mining activities. Other activities like community outreach are very important to a mining project. If the community is against a potential mine it can be very hard to permit. So community outreach is real to hear what concerns the local community has and the mine can show how they plan to mitigate or eliminate their concerns.

Then there is the material testing to determine the the existence of potentially acid generating (PAG) materials (rocks that have the potential to release acid or heavy metals) or non-acid generating materials (inert rock). Any PAG waste materials are placed on a double lined facility (may vary by state law) that typically consists of either 12 inches of clay or a low permeability soil layer or a geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) both of which have a hydraulic conductivity of at least 10^-6 cm/s. Then an HDPE liner (around 60 mil thickness) is placed over the low perm or GCL to provide double protection. Any runoff or drainage from a PAG waste dump is routed to a collection pond that typically has triple containment with a leak detection system. solution from these ponds are pumped to a water treatment facility then released once water quality is confirmed. After mining operations end these PAG waste dumps are capped with a low permeabiltiy soil or liner system (similar to a land fill) to prevent precipiation from entering the material. this eliminates rain/snow from coming into contact with PAG and over time the seepage from the PAG dump goes to zero.

To extract metals from ore, typically the ore is processed in a plant or is placed on a double lined facility and leached. Heap leach pads are very similar to a PAG dump and managed in a similar fashion. The process plant creates a the subject metal and tailings or the "rock" the subject metal was in. Tailings are managed in a similar way to PAG materials some times as a filtered or dewatered material or others placed as a slurry. A tailings slurry is kinda like a chocolate milk to pudding consistency and are managed in a tailings storage facility (TSF) where over time the tailings are dewatered via gravity and compaction. Recent TSF failures ( Brazilian mines and mt. polley in canada) have changed the global through process on how a TSF should be managed and the Global Industry Standard on Tailings Management (GISTM) is being implemented across the industry. https://globaltailingsreview.org/global-industry-standard/

This standard has enhanced monitoring, review, and reporting requirements that should mitigate future failures. 

Open pits are typically not filled after mining activities but the surrounding groundwater is mapped to determine the effect on the surrounding aquifer. These typically generate lakes that can be viable habitats as @Fishindude pointed out.

Similarly closure studies are completed at several phases of design to determine a safe final ground environment that is covered with salvaged growth media prior to construction and is revegetated with native plants. Closure monitoring obligations can last decades to ensure the designs are functioning as designed and to mitigate any potential problems that arise during the monitoring phase. Closure studies determine closure bonds that need to be funded prior to starting construction so if for any reason the company goes bankrupt or what ever, there are funds to close the site.

These are not evil corporations looking to destroy the world. they have a vested interest in developing a safe project, partnering with the local communities in which they work and providing a social benefit in terms of the necessary building blocks of our society, sand and gravel, rare earth metals, battery materials, industrials staples and precious metals. In today's world a dam failure or a spill can bankrupt a company, they don't want they nor do the consultants that serve the industry. Hopefully the above helps to alleviate some of your concerns. i to am an environmentalist and am glad to be part of the solution preventing catastrophes or spills at the sites where we work.   

[Radagast]

Personally, as a rabid environmentalist, I'd be happy with more mines IF said mines were less destructive to the local environment and weren't so completely horrific, health-wise, to the local residents.  I'm thinking of the proposed Pebble mine in Alaska that, if it went ahead, would have toxic tailing piles and other sludge that could conceivably leak and permanently destroy a multi-million dollar salmon fishing industry.  Or other mines that rely on open-pit techniques that destroy the land permanently - even if they 'put the earth back' once they're done (which often they don't), they usually have ruined the land for any farming, ranching, or other use (and again, they are irretrievably destroying local ecosystems, which thanks to habitat loss, are often the last refuges for multiple species).  Or pollute local aquifers and rivers to the detriment of anyone living downstream (see: Amazon gold mining, coal mining in Appalachia, etc., etc )

IF mining companies were actually willing to explore less-destructive methods of extraction and be held fully responsible for any potential damage they might cause (to the tune of non-dischargable insurance bonds in the millions or billions of dollars it would take to clean up after them, if they have any hazardous waste discharges/illegal disposal), I'd be a lot more onboard with new mines.  But of course, the companies don't want to do that.  They want to pull the good stuff out of the ground, and then take the profits and run and leave the local communities holding the bag for the destruction they cause.  This has been going on for several hundred years at this point, so I don't hold out a lot of hope for change.

As a rational environmentalist, I look around at all the crap I and other people use which is mined, and think "holy crap the US should be pockmarked with mines to afford this level of consumption." Like I said, I'd prefer to see no net imports of minerals to the US. All things sold should be recyclable and an organized recycling network should be set up such that 99% of materials are recycled.  If we want to transition to renewable energy, we need to mine. Beyond that, our social goals conflict with our environmental goals. If we want to keep bringing up the standard of life of the poor in the US and around the world, we need more mining. I don't know where that line is drawn, but I'd like to see all the costs and benefits go to the places the materials are used, especially if they are carefully regulated and transparent. "Made in USA 2030" would be a great and effective slogan, and also it would be nice to see more messaging about reducing waste.

That said, carefully regulated means efficient and fast regulation. If a mine cannot be allowed at a location or can be allowed only conditionally, then that is OK, but it should be determined quickly, and not drawn out over years decades.

A thing about oil and gas is that it is very minimally invasive and has few side effects. An oil well is like a very small straw in a very large cup, and with new technology the size of the cup is growing very large. From there it is preferably pumped (not trucked or shipped) through a small pipe to its destination. Really, carbon dioxide and whatnot is the only significant drawback to these.

For a mine, it is the reverse. It will always leave a large hole in the ground, and almost always a larger pile of waste rock next door. If there are lingering effects, they will usually be very local. It actually does not make sense to refill the mine, because the energy expenditure is almost as large as it was to mine in the first place, hence nearly doubling the emissions or quantity of battery.

Modern mining regulations, especially since the 1990's, are far more stringent about environmental protection than those which came before, though I am not sure how effective they are over the long run in all cases, for example some pit lakes will be highly acidic for centuries. But as a comparison, I once (for the year I did that type of thing) sampled water from a mine cerca 1900 which had built its tailings and waste dumps directly over a stream. The pH was 2, and every gallon of water we sampled from it weighed a full pound more than a regular gallon of water because of all the dissolved minerals. The stream carried this stuff through all sorts of habitat, and eventually past drinking water intakes (and also was a super fund site). However, now there are requirements to build those far from water, and to line the bottom with plastic and clay as described above, and to put a cap on it to direct precipitation away. So there will still be a very large negative effect, but it should be strictly local.

Anyhow, as an exercise I think people should look around and look at how much of the stuff around them which is visible right now is entirely a result of mining, how much was made out of renewable materials but shaped by mined materials, how much was merely transported by mined materials, and how much is in a form and location such that mining played no role.  It is shocking how much stuff tends toward the beginning of that order.

[Fishindude]

Anyhow, as an exercise I think people should look around and look at how much of the stuff around them which is visible right now is entirely a result of mining, how much was made out of renewable materials but shaped by mined materials, how much was merely transported by mined materials, and how much is in a form and location such that mining played no role.  It is shocking how much stuff tends toward the beginning of that order.

A lot of truth here.
Wake up and realize that we are not going to get away from mining anytime soon.

The real environmental push should be towards the low hanging fruit, easier to accomplish stuff like simply cleaning up after ourselves and creating less waste.   Big thing I would like to see is all liquid containers of returnable (glass) or recyclable materials which means aluminum or steel.   Plastic and papers have no recycle value so they don't get recycled.   
Should also eliminate all the paper and packaging if you eat indoors at any fast food restaurant.  Use washable plates, silverware and glasses.   I pick up a couple miles of roadside and fast food and drink containers are 90% of the litter.

[Watchmaker]

Anyhow, as an exercise I think people should look around and look at how much of the stuff around them which is visible right now is entirely a result of mining, how much was made out of renewable materials but shaped by mined materials, how much was merely transported by mined materials, and how much is in a form and location such that mining played no role.  It is shocking how much stuff tends toward the beginning of that order.

A lot of truth here.
Wake up and realize that we are not going to get away from mining anytime soon.

The real environmental push should be towards the low hanging fruit, easier to accomplish stuff like simply cleaning up after ourselves and creating less waste.   Big thing I would like to see is all liquid containers of returnable (glass) or recyclable materials which means aluminum or steel.   Plastic and papers have no recycle value so they don't get recycled.   
Should also eliminate all the paper and packaging if you eat indoors at any fast food restaurant.  Use washable plates, silverware and glasses.   I pick up a couple miles of roadside and fast food and drink containers are 90% of the litter.

The thing is, it can get quite complex figuring out what the best course of action is in a lot of situations. Glass packaging is great when used correctly, but it adds significant weight to the products and has pretty high embodied energy itself, all of which increases packaging and shipping costs and emissions. If you can package, sell, and reuse glass locally, that's often a great option. But if it's shipping long distances, or being recycled rather than reused, that can end up being a pretty awful solution.

A lot of our modern packaging solutions have been developed to allow global supply chains. One part of the solution needs to be to shift those supply chains to be more local for high volume consumption goods (I'm primarily thinking of food here).

[ministashy]

Anyhow, as an exercise I think people should look around and look at how much of the stuff around them which is visible right now is entirely a result of mining, how much was made out of renewable materials but shaped by mined materials, how much was merely transported by mined materials, and how much is in a form and location such that mining played no role.  It is shocking how much stuff tends toward the beginning of that order.

A lot of truth here.
Wake up and realize that we are not going to get away from mining anytime soon.

The real environmental push should be towards the low hanging fruit, easier to accomplish stuff like simply cleaning up after ourselves and creating less waste.   Big thing I would like to see is all liquid containers of returnable (glass) or recyclable materials which means aluminum or steel.   Plastic and papers have no recycle value so they don't get recycled.   
Should also eliminate all the paper and packaging if you eat indoors at any fast food restaurant.  Use washable plates, silverware and glasses.   I pick up a couple miles of roadside and fast food and drink containers are 90% of the litter.

I completely agree with most of this, and practice it as much as I can in my personal choices.  That said, personal choices only get us so far, and we need systemic change to make real impact.  There were originally three R's --reduce, reuse and only then, recycle.  But for some reason reduce and reuse has been ignored (gee, wonder why in an economy that thrives of consumerism), and recycling is underfunded and undercut by the mountains of mixed and unrecycleable garbage out there.

Honestly, if I were Queen of the World, my solutions would be as follows:

All single use items should be compostable whenever possible, and engineered to be recyclable where not.  (With exceptions for specialty materials needed for medical use, critical needs for safety, infrastructure, etc.) 

Mixed plastics should be reduced to use cases where they are absolutely necessary.  (see above exceptions) Everything else should be designed to be easily recyclable.

Government funding should given to materials and engineering research programs to gradually expand and create alternatives for these use cases, to create items that are recyclable or compostable.

All non-single use items need to be engineered to be repairable, and/or have a cradle-to-grave obligation for easy breakdown for recycling or safe disposal by the companies that create them.  If a company wants to create a non-recyclable, non-repairable disposable item, they still can, but that item is going to be significantly more expensive to produce due to this.  No more big companies outsourcing their disposal costs to local communities and federal gov'ts. 

If we did this, we'd see a big reduction in resources needed for all sorts of extractive industries.  What still needed to be mined could be done in much smaller quantities, and-with proper incentives-much less destructively, I would hope. 

We are seeing a lot more push for this, legislation-wise, but we still have a looooong way to go.  And inevitably is going to see pushback by people who are used to their throwaway, everything-is-plastic consumer lives.

[ministashy]

These are not evil corporations looking to destroy the world. they have a vested interest in developing a safe project, partnering with the local communities in which they work and providing a social benefit in terms of the necessary building blocks of our society, sand and gravel, rare earth metals, battery materials, industrials staples and precious metals. In today's world a dam failure or a spill can bankrupt a company, they don't want they nor do the consultants that serve the industry. Hopefully the above helps to alleviate some of your concerns. i to am an environmentalist and am glad to be part of the solution preventing catastrophes or spills at the sites where we work.

Sorry, this feels like a lot of PR to me.  Maybe there are some good, responsible mining companies out there abiding by the letter of the law, but from what I can tell there are also a lot of 'pull all the profit out of the ground you can, then up and run' outfits still in operation.  Hilltop removal is still legal and ongoing practice in Appalachia.  I lived next to an open pit coal mine in North Dakota that supplied a nearby coal plant - all the local residents knew they turned off their scrubbers in the wee hours of the morning, because you could see the haze along the horizon, but nobody ever did anything about.  Lord know if they will ever put the earth back when they're done, and if that land will be usable if they do.  In that same location, I lived next to another former mine where they had 'put the earth back' - put it back in huge mounds that made the area unuseable.  You couldn't level it; you couldn't even build a house on it.  The local boy scouts went in an planted some trees and the state turned it into a park - but it was a park you couldn't hike or otherwise use, was a haven for mosquitos, and provided very little good habitat for local animal life.  I'm not even sure you could hunt in it, unless you liked trekking up and down sheer hillsides constantly.

Far too many mining outfits promise the moon in adhering to safety regs and requirements, but then have 'accidents' that leave their local communities holding the bag.  And sure, they'll get fined a few hundred grand, but if they make a million bucks in profit in the meantime, then that's just the cost of doing business.  I receive regular notices from Earthjustice about ongoing efforts to hold mining companies accountable for the harm they cause, and believe me, not all of them are from old operations from the 70's.  Some of them are ongoing today.

[Blissful Biker]

PTF.  I am in the Mining EPC business and am seeing a substantial increase in mining projects to support the energy transition.  We are hiring in every office but are still limited by lack of resources as are our competitors. 

https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in-clean-energy-transitions

I gave my notice to retire but was talked into extending part time for another 6 months.  I accepted in part because it allows me to play a role in supporting the energy transition and in part because of the current market volatility.

As a mining business we are doing a lot of good things to ensure the projects are sustainable. Examples include electric mine trucks, on site solar farms and additional safety factors and inspection in tailing dam designs.

[joemandadman189]

These are not evil corporations looking to destroy the world. they have a vested interest in developing a safe project, partnering with the local communities in which they work and providing a social benefit in terms of the necessary building blocks of our society, sand and gravel, rare earth metals, battery materials, industrials staples and precious metals. In today's world a dam failure or a spill can bankrupt a company, they don't want they nor do the consultants that serve the industry. Hopefully the above helps to alleviate some of your concerns. i to am an environmentalist and am glad to be part of the solution preventing catastrophes or spills at the sites where we work.

Sorry, this feels like a lot of PR to me.  Maybe there are some good, responsible mining companies out there abiding by the letter of the law, but from what I can tell there are also a lot of 'pull all the profit out of the ground you can, then up and run' outfits still in operation.  Hilltop removal is still legal and ongoing practice in Appalachia.  I lived next to an open pit coal mine in North Dakota that supplied a nearby coal plant - all the local residents knew they turned off their scrubbers in the wee hours of the morning, because you could see the haze along the horizon, but nobody ever did anything about.  Lord know if they will ever put the earth back when they're done, and if that land will be usable if they do.  In that same location, I lived next to another former mine where they had 'put the earth back' - put it back in huge mounds that made the area unuseable.  You couldn't level it; you couldn't even build a house on it.  The local boy scouts went in an planted some trees and the state turned it into a park - but it was a park you couldn't hike or otherwise use, was a haven for mosquitos, and provided very little good habitat for local animal life.  I'm not even sure you could hunt in it, unless you liked trekking up and down sheer hillsides constantly.

Far too many mining outfits promise the moon in adhering to safety regs and requirements, but then have 'accidents' that leave their local communities holding the bag.  And sure, they'll get fined a few hundred grand, but if they make a million bucks in profit in the meantime, then that's just the cost of doing business.  I receive regular notices from Earthjustice about ongoing efforts to hold mining companies accountable for the harm they cause, and believe me, not all of them are from old operations from the 70's.  Some of them are ongoing today.

All i can say is, from my experience, every project i have worked on has followed the rules and regulations of the governing bodies and if there is was an issue they notified agencies as required and remediated any issues. Your coal example is about the power plant, not the mine. I havent worked in the eastern US so i cant comment on coal mining in appalachia, but i do know that not a lot of coal is being mined any more as we transition to clean energy, especially dirty coal. As far as land use after mine closure, that should be considered on a case by case basis and consider the existing or prior land use and proposed use post reclamation. 

As far as not following the rules, i have never seen it. Its not in a companies best interest to do harm and make a bad name for themselves in the industry and with regulators at least with US or Canadian companies. This may be an area where we dont agree, and thats ok. I just dont see the evil mining companies conspiring to harm others or the earth to make a profit. Mining leaves an impact there is no doubt, but many stake holders and government agencies have a say in the plans and outcomes.

[BicycleB]

Good topic, great discussion.

I look forward to the day when all mines are as carefully run as those where OP works. In general, I support the "all of the above" discussed early in the thread. By getting the achievable good from each option, we can make progress and position ourselves for further improvements. The overall tradeoffs discussed here really are key for building a sustainable future.

Re carbon tax, I'm for it and progressives could logically support a version that assists poor people. The simple version (so to speak) would be a carbon dividend, in which the carbon tax revenues are returned to the people on a per-person basis as a monthly or annual "dividend" payment. Since wealthy people generate more energy use per person on average, they will be net payers, while ordinary people would likely get paid slightly more than the cost of the tax. The average Jane would come out ahead financially, even before system improvements end up reducing net costs.

The carbond dividend idea is already embodied in a legitimate bill in US Congress: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/2307?r=758&s=1

Canada passed something similar but devoted about a third of the revenue to renewability-related projects, I believe. I have read that the implemented bill has remained popular.