If you are an environmentalist, how do you reconcile...

[Strugglingtodomybest]

... the need for a huge increase in mining of critical minerals in order to fuel the green revolution against the damage mining does to the environment?

I've been pondering this a lot recently and thought this might be the board to get other's views on it.

TheCompactPussycat

It helps to remember that "environmentalism" covers a huge spectrum of often contradictory ideas and concepts. It's nigh on impossible to reconcile every environmental issue completely satisfactorily.

You're probably right. I tend to like definite answers, but maybe the answer in this case is, like SalmonWellington said:

Both are bad, but one is worse.

And I just need to accept that.

I think the quotation marks might convey that environmentalism has acquired vaguely pejorative connotations in certain segments of the population, and also that as pointed out above it covers those with views on climate change, biodiversity, plastic waste, air quality, I could go on. If you say someone’s a Tory you basically know what that means but if you say “environmentalist” there are a huge range of possible priorities, goals and values which overlap very broadly.

I sometimes think of it as being a sideways step rather than being a forwards step.
The path we are on with the consumption of fossil fuels etc is one that we know leads to a bad place.
So we step sideways (and even back a bit maybe) to a new path which hopefully then can go forward in a better, cleaner, less damaging way as the technology around it develops.

So for example with recycling at first lots of materials and plastic we were told not to recycle because it costs too much and uses too much fuel to be worth it. But by pushing on to recycle those things the technology has now developed to make it worthwhile. This is what I think or hope may happen with electric vehicles. But I'm really not very informed, that's just the way I think of it

You're not wrong OP. In that the mining of those minerals for EV batteries is hugely detrimental to the environment.
As others have said, I think there is a hope that more abundant, less "hard to get" minerals will be used in EV batteries. For example, sodium ion batteries.
As others have also said, I think it's about accepting that we can't consume as much as we have been doing.
Honestly I have a lot of eco anxiety when I think about it, so in general I don't, which I know is not a brilliant approach.
I don't know what the answer is really!

Agree about mining v petrol impacts. Unintended consequences or not considering the bigger picture.

I think that consumerism could be reduced. And that responsibility should also be pushed onto manufacturers.

eg the trend for big suv vehicles which are largely unnecessary in the U.K. but are being advertised heavily. Smaller cars, less resources, less space required would be a good place to start.

Manufacturers to consider longevity and not built in obsolescence. Offering ways to repair rather than making it prohibitive. Environmental impact at the heart rather than pursuit of profits.

But I don’t hold out much hope.

Some of what you list isn't actually a mineral, but I think I get your point.

I think it's important to recognize that we are not currently in a position where all the products and processes we use each day are fully sustainable, either environmentally, socially, or financially. But equally that we need those products and processes to be fully sustainable as soon as possible. If we recognize both those things we can develop plans to move from the here and now towards a sustainable future.

Take Li as an example, we could cease mining tomorrow but the social impact on people who rely on mining and subsequent processing would be significant. The financial collapse of the EV factories would be dire. And there would also be a significant environmental impact if we substituted EVs by burning fossil fuels.

I've just come from a conference where I had a discussion about how little we actually know, as in hard corroborated data, about the impact of many of these products and processes.

So the first step is to measure the sustainability of our current products and processes. Then we can identify the steps that we need to take to improve and compare alternatives. Some might be quick and easy, some might require new technology, such as sodium ion batteries or heavy metal hydrides for hydrogen storage. In some case we might already have the technology but the infrastructure required to deploy them successfully are years in the planning alone - e.g heat pumps and floating offshore wind. (Actually we don't really have FLOW nailed yet)

So its the roadmaps and the development of new technology that will deliver a sustainable future.

Policies on climate change still seem to be driven by economic growth. Persuading everyone to replace their petrol cars with EVs is not going to help the environment - it is just going to change one lot of waste and damage into a different lot of waste and damage.

I believe that the way forward is sharing. More public transport and more car shares. Of the 20+ cars on our small street - most are only used 2-3 times a week. The could be replaced by 4-5 car share EVs.

Those that are driven regularly are mainly used for commuting to the nearby town for work because there is no public transport or safe bike routes. Only a 20 min drive which should be perfectly possible on a bus or electric bike.

My general feeling is that unless we radically alter our attitude to owning stuff we are doomed...

@Strugglingtodomybest @Bluebelle82 actually makes my point very well. We absolutely shouldn't be making serious long term decisions based on beliefs or general feelings as these are just not based on fact. ICE cars are significantly worse for the environment after 40,000 miles of using renewable energy or 100,000 miles using the standard European electricity generation fuel mix.

Thanks everyone, sorry to not reply individually but I'm back at work today, so less time on my hands.

The general impression I am getting is that mining is a necessary evil - and maybe I shouldn't even be labelling it evil, it just is what it is and we can't do without it? We can only make things better by improving mining practices, in terms of the actual mining engineering itself, the processing of the ore and the ESG (environment, social and governance) practices of the mining companies.

A big way of improving things I think, is through increased recycling rates (or to give it it's new trendy name, urban mining). eg it's much better to be able to recycle old solar panels, phones etc than it is to dig up more rare earth metals to make new ones. Therefore we need more research into safe, clean methods of recycling which are economically more viable than mining (otherwise it's unlikely to become standard practice).

And of course, less consumption. I couldn't agree more with this, but I despair when I look around at society in general and I have no idea how to persuade people that they don't need the latest phone upgrade or the biggest SUV (I mean, have you seen the AIBU threads on here where anyone dares to criticise SUVs? Apparently they are absolutely essential to a lot of people's lives 🙄)

@Daftasabroom sorry, I should have been even clearer in my explanation of what critical minerals are. When I said copper, cobalt, lithium etc are critical minerals, when they are obviously metals, it's just shorthand for the mineral ores, such as chalcopyrite, which they are found in. Otherwise they are too many to mention!

DH works on the technology to do with batteries. He won’t have an EV. He thinks it’s displaced environmentalism. We have them to improve our immediate environment whilst screwing over other parts of the planet.
At the moment they are working towards making the batteries more efficient which means more environmentally unfriendly.

There’s lots of negatives to do with EV, being heavier and more wear on the roads, creating more tyre pollution. It’s clear it’s better to have fewer smaller cars.

I read an article that said advertising for SUVs has a big impact on consumers and there’s a suggestion that these ads should be banned for the sake of the environment.

I’d also stop international business meetings in person.
i know of companies that send their employees to the US several times a year for meetings. What’s the point!

rummikub certainly when people are asked why they have SUVs on here, their answers closely parrot the things pushed in the ads:

"They're safer!" (they aren't).

"We live rurally so we need one!" (You don't need one- I live rurally and everyone I know who lives up a bumpy dirt track drives an estate, a people carrier or a van. And often SUVs are way too wide for the narrow lanes).

"They're spacious!" (not for their size they aren't)

"They're attractive!" (pisses self 😆)

I don't think we are suffering from anything even remotely approaching reduced living standards.

I don’t think we are either, but I think that’s why emissions are still rising. I also think we need a dramatic drop in consumerism which humans will never do voluntarily.

Crackofdoom interesting that isn’t it.

So many thing have unintended consequences as it’s all about profit or quick fixes or tick boxing. Absolutely should be joined up thinking.

Very true. I mean, who's going to want to give up their foreign holiday, or stop eating out-of-season fruit and veg that has travelled thousands of air miles, or forego having that new electronic gadget when they want it?

People always talk about fruit and veg airmiles but unless it's air freighted, the carbon cost of fruit and vegetables is always going to be much lower than locally produced meat and dairy, so given we have to consume something, imported vegetables are pretty okay (asparagus and berries out of season are the main exceptions where they might have been flown in. Cut flowers similarly)

You talk as if extracting fossil fuels were a completely benign enterprise. It does of course do damage to pull metals out of the ground, use them for the lifetime of a car battery, then use that battery in a static storage installation, then recycle the metal at the end of life.

BUT if the alternative is to drill oil out of the seabed (or worse frack it out of rock), take it to a refinery (a large one will use about the same amount of electricity as Sheffield), then distribute it on tankers to filling stations, where it gets burnt in colossally inefficient combustion engines (around 30 percent efficient, less in winter) and is gone forever.... well that's a different comparator.

PS cobalt is also used to remove sulphur from diesel.

I find it really strange that people with absolutely zero knowledge of sustainability, but a tonne of bias or prejudice, just make things up based feelings or beliefs.

It's simple:

Burning fossil fuels is really, really, really screwing with the environment and the primary cause of climate change by a long, long way.

So, we need to stop burning fossil fuels.

The crux is we need to stop burning fossil fuels without a decline in living standards. And it can be done. But the more we put it off the harder it will be.

We don’t. Because its a form of greenwashing. Replacing oil derived fuel cars with electric ones just kicks the can of environmental harm down the road and out of sight.
what we need is less vehicles on the road. No one in good physical shape who lives in the city or suburbs should feel compelled to drive to work. There should be an increase in remote working whenever possible and schools should provide safe alternatives to ‘mums taxi’ twice a day too.
see also: local food production and smarter city planning to reduce the need for commuting and driving to stores, safe routes for walking and free water fountains to reduce single use plastics.
I can categorically and confidentially predict that exactly zero of these things will happen though because no one will be able to make profit from it.

Fossil fuel is severe damage now that could make things really bad

Kind of like asking if you should avoid chemo as it's harmful

But there is a third alternative: maintain a decent standard of living while also making the really drastic cuts in fossil fuel use we need to do.

Think about WWII, we couldn’t just ignore the fact that people were dying in their thousands, blockades were happening and planes were dropping bombs on our heads. The entire country had to deal with rationing, the need to make munitions, sending their sons and fathers overseas to war, conserving water, blackout blinds, spending their nights in bomb shelters etc.

Think about Covid. Hospitals couldn’t choose not to be overwhelmed. We couldn’t choose not to lose elderly (or otherwise) relatives. We complied with laws to stop the spread of infection despite the restrictions to our lives.

Climate change will be like that but 100 times worse. You can’t make a treaty with climate change. You can’t use diplomatic means or big guns to resurrect species or magic more oil or raw materials out of the ground when they’ve run out. You can’t reason with the ocean or intimidate it to de-acidify it. You can’t use a nuclear bomb to change the weather. We can’t just close our eyes, put our heads in the sand and hope it will go away, or pick holes in the methods people use to try to fight it. The OP is right and wrong IMO. EVs are not an ideal substitute for diesel and petrol, the only thing that is going to save us is reduction in demand and consumption across every single sector of the economy.

@quivers its not all bad reducing consumerism. My quality of life has gone through the roof. I live in a small house and manage to keep my combined utilities at about £100 a month. I don’t own a car so all the money I save from that plus all the money I save from eating the way I do, plus the fact I never holiday abroad because I always time my holidays for the rare good British weather and go at short notice (usually paying bugger all for the accommodation and train) , I buy second hand devices and use them till they die, I grow food in my garden and have an unheated pool for the kids (they don’t mind) I’m able to work part time because I live really cheaply and that’s brought massive freedom. Im not saying that works for everyone, but it can be great for some of us. Lots of people are caught up in consumerist culture because they feel compelled to fit in and be seen as prosperous. That’s the design though.

@CeciledeVolangesdeNouveau But there is a third alternative: maintain a decent standard of living while also making the really drastic cuts in fossil fuel use we need to do.

@Strugglingtodomybest this^^