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.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    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@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      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.

        • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          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.

            • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              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.

                • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  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.

                  • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    6 months ago

                    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.