…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
https://www.hitachirail.com/products-and-solutions/battery-powered-trains/
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/first-battery-powered-trains-europe-180982468/
etc.
Those are the same electrified train… The battery only has 10k of range. Meaning it’s just a gimmick for green wash marketing.
Ect.
Not trying to nitpick your general point, but electric trains can get power from an electrified third rail or overhead lines.
Generally not if they are going across the country though.
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.
Please explain:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/first-battery-powered-trains-europe-180982468/
https://www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews/news-wire/first-of-many-battery-trains-enter-service-in-germany/
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.
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.
“They are designed to replace diesel multiple units and operate as regular electric trains when running on electrified lines”
The same train system.
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?
Harder than laying rail lines that already exist? Yes. Why wouldn’t it be? Or do all new tracks also need to be built?
Hum… Your version of electric trains do not need electric motors? It must be a really nice design, have you patented it already?
What does an electric motor have to do with batteries or fossil fuels?
Rare earth elements (the ones people are blaming here) have nothing to do with batteries.
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.
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.
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.
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."
https://www.spglobal.com/mobility/en/research-analysis/briefcase-sodium-ion-batteries-to-unseat-lithium.html
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
How many children are you willing to allow to starve to death or die by massive infections by abandoning these things?
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?
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.
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.