Tensions grow as China ramps up global mining for green tech

…

As Chinese companies have increased their overseas mining operations, allegations of problems caused by these projects have steadily risen.

The Business and Human Rights Resource Centre, an NGO, says such troubles are “not unique to Chinese mining” but last year it published a report listing 102 allegations made against Chinese companies involved in extracting critical minerals, ranging from violations of the rights of local communities to damage to ecosystems and unsafe working conditions.

These allegations dated from 2021 and 2022. The BBC has counted more than 40 further allegations that were made in 2023, and reported by NGOs or in the media.

3volver,

Thankfully electric vehicles are becoming cheaper then ICE vehicles which is a very good sign that we don’t need as many rare earth metals. Unfortunately for renewable technology we still need rare earth metals, and they need to be mined using fossil fuels first. That’s the stage we’re at right now. We still need to get much better at recycling which I believe we will.

3volver,

Oh and anyone that says electric vehicles are worse for the environment than ICE vehicles are idiots and shills. ICE vehicles also rely on rare earth metals and produce significant air pollution.

TheFriar,

“Strip mining for the environment!”

Maybe our tech isn’t so “green” if this is the process.

FlyingSquid,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

The problem is, what’s the alternative? Unless we make some new discovery or give up on modern society, this is how we get off fossil fuels. I hate it, I just don’t see another answer.

version_unsorted,

Well, you answered your own question. We need to give up on “modern society” if our way of living can’t change to ease the exploitation of peoples and the earth, we shouldn’t partake.

FlyingSquid,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

If we gave up on things like modern agricultural methods and modern medicine, billions of people could die. You included. Is that really what you want?

assassin_aragorn,

Lot of people are content to say we should give up modern standards of living without realizing just how crucial those are for people living healthily.

TranscendentalEmpire,

I don’t think that’s a very fair argument. Giving up modern society doesn’t implicitly mean giving up modern medicine or agriculture. I think a fairer interpretation would be that modern society is too obsessed with excessive consumption.

We do need to moderate our consumption, if everyone consumed at the same rate as modern western nations we would all be doomed.

version_unsorted,

I’m ready to start taking steps toward a society that does not exploit people or the earth, if that means our lifespan is impacted, I’ll take that as fallout. Obviously I’d give up more of my own lifestyle as an able bodied person to support others and provide whatever I can for a just society. So yeah, if we can’t do this together, I’d rather not do it at all.

FlyingSquid,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

How many children are you willing to allow to starve to death or die by massive infections by abandoning these things?

version_unsorted,

People are already dying. Our existing system which is built on exploitation causes countless people to be sacrificed to support the way we live right now. How many people are you willing to sacrifice with poisoned waterways and medical conditions caused by unsafe working conditions, as mentioned in the article?

FlyingSquid,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

That’s not an answer. There are approximately 2 billion children in the world today. How many are you willing to sacrifice to a slow and agonizing death through starvation and disease? Let’s have a percentage.

assassin_aragorn,

Those people are still going to die you realize. This isn’t a binary. It will take decades to eliminate those issues. We’re better off spending that time to figure out how to maintain our current quality of life while also solving those problems.

Edit: Especially if we maintain modern medicine and agriculture. Those aren’t intrinsically safe and non polluting.

vividspecter,

The alternative is moving away from rare earth minerals to more common ones for battery tech, which is starting to happen. A long term transition will likely require more fundamental shifts in society, which will bring a lot of benefits too. But in the short term, fossil fuels need to be abandoned rapidly.

FlyingSquid,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Yes, my apologies, I was speaking about this being necessary in the short term due to us not having any other options. Maybe one day there will be viable battery technology that doesn’t require conflict minerals and can be produced at scale, but not for quite some time.

IchNichtenLichten,
@IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world avatar

Maybe one day there will be viable battery technology that doesn’t require conflict minerals and can be produced at scale, but not for quite some time.

It’s already here.

“In April 2023, Contemporary Amperex Technology (CATL) announced that Chery Automobile became the first customer for its sodium-ion batteries. CATL unveiled its internally developed sodium-ion batteries in July 2021. While CATL’s first-generation sodium-ion battery had an energy density of 160 watt-hours per kilogram (Wh/kg), the battery maker’s next-generation sodium-ion battery energy density will exceed 200 Wh/kg.

However, we are now witnessing non-mainland Chinese players entering the fray. Stellantis and Northvolt recently announced their move toward sodium-ion battery technology.”

spglobal.com/…/briefcase-sodium-ion-batteries-to-…

vividspecter,

No problem, I don’t disagree with your argument at all. And broadly, the “just shutdown society” approach, even it it’s the most effective, I just don’t see how it would work. Unless every government in the world goes full authoritarian, the people just aren’t going to support that level of action. The only way I see it happening, if it happens by necessity (which means things have already hit disaster level).

So the things that can be rolled out rapidly to quickly transition things with minimal disruption need to happen first, like renewable energy and EVs (I say that as a “fuck cars” type, but I know that winning that argument is going to take longer than the time we have to reduce emissions rapidly). And the argument of reducing consumption, circular economies, and more efficient infrastructure design needs to be made over the coming decades.

TranscendentalEmpire,

The same solution that’s been around since 1879… the electric train.

There is no environmentally friendly way to keep our current mass transit system, which is currently just everyone over the age of 16 having a car.

The problem is simple, the solution is simple, the only thing that makes it a difficult problem is because we don’t have an economic incentive to shift capital away from private ownership.

marcos,

Hum… Your version of electric trains do not need electric motors? It must be a really nice design, have you patented it already?

TranscendentalEmpire,

What does an electric motor have to do with batteries or fossil fuels?

marcos,

Rare earth elements (the ones people are blaming here) have nothing to do with batteries.

TranscendentalEmpire,

The topic of the conversation has been over rare earth elements specific to battery production…

The only rare earth elements in any electric motor are neodymium, and trains typically don’t even have those. Electromagnetic is more dynamic as you can easily manipulate the magnetic current.

FlyingSquid,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

First of all, electric trains require batteries, which require these minerals. Secondly, so does every electronic device in your house for other reasons.

So I have no idea why you think electric trains will do anything about mining conflict minerals.

TranscendentalEmpire,

First of all, electric trains require batteries, which require these minerals. Secondly, so does every electronic device in your house for other reasons.

Electric trains don’t run on batteries… It’s through an electrified rail, or overhead wiring. Do you think they had batteries in the 1800s that were energy dense enough to push a cast iron train?

FlyingSquid,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

www.hitachirail.com/…/battery-powered-trains/

smithsonianmag.com/…/first-battery-powered-trains…

etc.

TranscendentalEmpire,

Those are the same electrified train… The battery only has 10k of range. Meaning it’s just a gimmick for green wash marketing.

Ect.

ExhaleSmile,

Not trying to nitpick your general point, but electric trains can get power from an electrified third rail or overhead lines.

FlyingSquid,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Generally not if they are going across the country though.

TranscendentalEmpire,

You have no idea what you are talking about… Electric trains predate the combustion engine and were used to transport trains all over the world. You are pretending as if it’s difficult to hang a wire over train tracks, or electrify a track.

Battery powered trains are largely a failure, as you are using most of the output of the battery to move the battery. They typically only have about a 100k range and are only employed in cities as local transit.

Every high-speed train on the planet is run on electrified rail, a third of all railways are electrified, this including the entirety of the trans Siberian railway.

FlyingSquid,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Please explain:

smithsonianmag.com/…/first-battery-powered-trains…

trains.com/…/first-of-many-battery-trains-enter-s…

Also, stringing cables across vast distances where there are no cables is not some sort of simple task like you make it out to be.

TranscendentalEmpire,

smithsonianmag.com/…/first-battery-powered-trains…

“The trains have the ability to switch between battery power, electricity and diesel. They can travel roughly ten miles relying only on batteries”

Maybe read the article you posted as evidence? It’s not a battery powered train, it’s just an electric train that has a small battery to reap back a little energy conservation from braking. The battery is largely just a marketing tool used to sell it to politicians.

trains.com/…/first-of-many-battery-trains-enter-s…

“They are designed to replace diesel multiple units and operate as regular electric trains when running on electrified lines”

The same train system.

Also, stringing cables across vast distances where there are no cables is not some sort of simple task like you make it out to be.

Harder than laying rail lines across the same vast distances…? Or harder than replacing every engine with a battery power, and maintaining those complicated engines and replacing those consumable batteries?

Again, you obviously have no knowledge about trains. Why are you so set on spreading misinformation about them?

FlyingSquid,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Harder than laying rail lines that already exist? Yes. Why wouldn’t it be? Or do all new tracks also need to be built?

TranscendentalEmpire,

Harder than laying rail lines that already exist? Yes. Why wouldn’t it be?

What do you think is harder, leveling, elevating, compacting, laying down ties, and then laying and welding kilometers of the rail…or you just digging a hole every 200 yards and hanging wire?

We are already doing things a lot more difficult by simply laying down track, electrifying it isn’t going to be a problem. If the Russians could electrify rail all the way to the Pacific +50 years ago, I think we can manage.

do all new tracks also need to be built?

No, you could hang wire relatively easily and cheaply. But electrifying the rail would be the best solution. Something you could easily do while doing track maintenance over time.

The rails we utilize have to be regularly replaced anyways, we aren’t running on the same track we laid down a hundred years ago.

This is not a difficult material problem, this is how the majority of large nations handle mass transportation. America is just more concerned with protecting their car and airplane industry than they care about logistics or about solving climate change.

FlyingSquid,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

The tracks could have been laid down 100 years ago and just replaced on an as-needed basis. Why you think that rapidly laying wires all over the place in order to stave off climate change is some simple task that people just need to make an effort at I don’t know.

TranscendentalEmpire,

Why you think that rapidly laying wires all over the place in order to stave off climate change is some simple task that people just need to make an effort at I don’t know.

Because it is a simple task? Compared to laying down a road or even maintaining it it’s a breeze. San Francisco recently converted all of its rail to overhead wiring in 4 days.

The reason so many countries are laying down thousands of miles of new electrified rail is because it is immensely more economical and less time consuming than any other mass transportation network. It’s the same reason why California is doing high-speed electric rail, because it’s too economically damaging not to.

Expanding road lanes and the maintenance of these expansions would cost the state several more times than highspeed rail, and move significantly less cargo and people.

FlyingSquid,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Again, you’re talking about things that have already been done vs. things that have to be done. I’m not sure why you think it’s easier to do something that hasn’t been done yet than something that you don’t have to do because it’s already done.

TranscendentalEmpire,

Again, you’re talking about things that have already been done vs. things that have to be done.

We were discussing the solution to mitigate fossil fuels consumption while not relying on environmentally and socially exploitative battery industry.

Therefore I am comparing what we are doing to what we need to be doing to mitigate this risk. I don’t know why you find that a foreign concept…

That would be like me questioning your solution of battery powered cars. Replacing every single combustion engine in America is harder to do than what we have now…no shit. The whole point is choosing a replacement that mitigates the stated undesirable effects, which requires change.

When looking at systems of mass transit you have to compare things like production cost and maintenance to things like capacity or efficiency, in all these categories no vehicle exceeds the effective outcome of electric rail.

Somehow you have come to believe that electrifying rail is difficult when compared to other mass transit systems despite not providing any reason why. Roads are already harder and more expensive to install and maintain, and we keep on expanding them just fine.

FlyingSquid,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

How much in terms of would have to be used to lay all these wires and maintain them?

TranscendentalEmpire,

How much in terms?

I’m not sure what you are asking, but if it’s asking how much electrifying a railway would cost, it depends on what you are doing.

The cost to electrify an existing railway is only around 1-5 million dollars a mile depending on locality. Which is cheaper than building a two lane undivided road ( 3-4 million per mile), and vastly cheaper than expanding an existing highway (10 million per lane per mile).

Again, this only seems expensive or materially difficult if you don’t know anything about mass transit.

FlyingSquid,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

In terms of tons of CO2. That’s generally how such things are measured.

TranscendentalEmpire,

Lol, please reread your question. It was an incomplete sentence, I think you may have mistyped. To answer your question.

increasing the amount of electrified rail by 2050 could reduce carbon dioxide equivalent emissions by 1.91–3.25 gigatons. This additional electrification could cost between $0.66–1.43 trillion, but could save $2.16–4.77 trillion over the lifetime of the infrastructure.

The actual installation of electric rail would be minimal compared to a road, I mean it’s not like we’re having to move literal tons of material for every km of wiring.

However the real CO2 savings comes from taking diesel trains off of the tracks.

FlyingSquid,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

I asked about how much CO2 building it and maintaining it would emit. That doesn’t answer it.

TranscendentalEmpire,

So you don’t care about the total sum of CO2 involved in the project? Then what’s the point of your question?

Are you suggesting we only invest in investing in solutions with zero C02 emissions?

The emissions from the construction of the high speed rail lines considered here is in the range of 58 t – 176 t of CO2 per km of line and year.

Compared to a single highway lane

building a lane-mile of highway releases between 1,400 and 2,300 tons of CO2.

So the production and installation would be several magnitudes less than building a single lane highway.

Maintenance is a more difficult thing to estimate for trains, as most environmental impact studies include the maintenance and disposal of the actual trains into the equation.

If you want to you can figure it out yourself, but I can guarantee you that it’s lower than anyother transportation network infrastructure.

FlyingSquid,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Why are you bringing up building more highways? Why would more highways need to be built? There are plenty of highways and there are plenty of rail lines. The question is if building lines to electrify all of the rail lines in the world would be done fast enough with a low enough carbon output to mitigate climate change.

Because if it can’t be done it quickly enough, it’s not a good solution except in the very long term.

TranscendentalEmpire,

Why are you bringing up building more highways? Why would more highways need to be built? There are plenty of highways and there are plenty of rail lines.

Well first of all, because we began this conversation with you claiming there isn’t any better option than battery powered vehicles… But mostly, because we are talking about a transportation network that will need to accommodate the continued growth of the population. We clearly don’t have enough highways, just look at how bad congestion is in the vast majority of our larger cities, look at how much we are expanding the highways we already have. We clearly don’t have enough rail, just look at how dependent we are on semi trucks for long distance shipping.

The only way to relieve this growing traffic problem is to make our transportation networks more efficient, and the most efficient and green form of transportation is electric rail, and by a large margin.

The question is if building lines to electrify all of the rail lines in the world would be done fast enough with a low enough carbon output to mitigate climate change.

It’s already happening… As I said 1/3 of all rail is already electrified, with the majority of unelectrified rail being located in the US. We are one of the only large countries that utilize diesel engines for the majority of our rail network. Just look at Europe and Asia and see how much they are investing into highspeed rail. America is the only place that rejects public transportation options, and it’s almost entirely to protect fossil fuel and vehicle manufacturers.

Because if it can’t be done it quickly enough, it’s not a good solution except in the very long term.

Couldn’t you say the same about electric cars? How long do you think it’s going to take to get Americans to replace over 250 million vehicles with combustion engines on a volunteer basis?

I still don’t know why you are dying on this particular hill, especially considering you are clearly ignorant about the topic? You literally thought that all electric trains were battery powered… What gives you the confidence to be so bold, yet so wrong?

Seriously, don’t take my word for it. Just set aside your biases and do little research about the topic and I’m sure you would agree. There’s a reason why the most progressive state in America on climate initiative is dumping billions into highspeed rail, and there’s a reason why conservatives are spending millions to try and stop it.

FlyingSquid,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

You’re still not telling me how much carbon output would be generated by electrifying every rail line on the planet.

TranscendentalEmpire,

You’re still not telling me how much carbon output would be generated by electrifying every rail line on the planet.

Lol, I don’t see how that pertains to this argument? You haven’t answered a number of my questions, I’m just not choosing to be pedantic about it.

You’re not telling how long it will take to replace every car in America, or what the carbon output of that replacement and disposal of old vehicles would be.

Stop being an academically dishonest ass, and just admit you are speaking out of ignorance.

FlyingSquid,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Odd that I’m not answering the questions you asked after I asked mine, isn’t it?

Expecting me to answer them first seems dishonest to me…

TranscendentalEmpire,

Lol, I have answered your question, just not to your pedantic standards. There is no study that encompasses every rail network in the world, just as there is no study that encompasses every combustion engine in the world. As the world isn’t working as a single entity to fight climate change.

I have given plenty of evidence to support my argument, you have only supplied two articles that did not support your argument, and we’re about the same train system.

You aren’t arguing in good faith, you’re just employing one logical fallacy after another because that’s all you have to rely on.

Expecting me to answer them first seems dishonest to me…

You made the original claim that there wasn’t a better answer than battery powered vehicles, so the burden of evidence is in your court. An affirmation made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, but I was actually trying to educate you over a very important topic.

I guess that’s my fault for assuming that someone as terminally online as yourself could put their ego aside for meaningful discourse.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • world@lemmy.world
  • PowerRangers
  • DreamBathrooms
  • everett
  • magazineikmin
  • InstantRegret
  • ngwrru68w68
  • Youngstown
  • Durango
  • slotface
  • rosin
  • GTA5RPClips
  • modclub
  • kavyap
  • thenastyranch
  • anitta
  • khanakhh
  • osvaldo12
  • ethstaker
  • vwfavf
  • mdbf
  • tester
  • tacticalgear
  • Leos
  • cisconetworking
  • cubers
  • normalnudes
  • provamag3
  • megavids
  • All magazines
    •