back
72 comments
I’m interested in how this editorial got written. It’s not attributed to anyone and the language and perspective seem to me to be CCP talking points.

“Sustainability, equity and security are all at risk in the rush to break China’s dominance over their production.”

- I can think of one entity which wouldn’t want China’s dominance of rare earth production broken and it’s not the DRC.

“China’s ascendancy is the result of forward thinking by the country’s leadership”

- Seems strangely flattering since it doesn’t seem like it adds anything to the arguments or the context.

“it is not in the interests of any nation to partner with just one other country or group of countries”

- I believe this is explicitly a CCP talking point (link below for reference). Obviously, other people might say it but it seems sort of… suspect? Like the article purports to make a moralistic claim about exploitation and then goes into pure realpolitik. In my opinion that’s the sort of thing you’d only say if you were wearing social justice as a mask and didn’t actually believe in it yourself.

https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/wjbxw/202302/t20230220_1102...

I guess like you can buy -articles- on my local newspaper for your local business, now you can buy -papers- on nature or whatever, must be a case of how much money you paying for the ad

Submarines are pretty easy to detect once you've been here for a while tho http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html

I think it just happens in this case that the pie-maximizing-in-cooperative-state behaviour == not duplicating mining efforts == China favoring.

An opposite argument could be make for semiconductors. In that case, the environmental approach is to NOT make multiple fabs, keep them in Taiwan / the Netherlands, and discourage China from making new fabs. This would be against China.

Generally, the environmental position favors not duplicating effort, which favors the current incumbent.

The editorial actually very carefully (and rightfully) isn't arguing for 'let China do all the mining' (or even avoiding duplicating mining efforts). It clearly says so "But it would be unwise for the rest of the world to rely on just one country for the processing of critical minerals" (and logically the same would be true for mining).

The editorial is arguing against trading blocs. In fact, it's arguing for some form of free trade. This benefits China in both that it is currently in a dominant position in terms of market and capacity, and also favors China in that it neutralizes one area where the US generally holds advantages - better soft power, and a being generally thought more favourably than China.

> “Sustainability, equity and security are all at risk in the rush to break China’s dominance over their production.”

Chinese dominance of rare earth production is not sustainable, either, using lax regulations to externalize environmental and health hazards: leaking radioactive residue (like thorium) and other toxic waste, polluting water sources (including the Yellow River), neglecting worker safety, and abusing human rights.[1]

> “China’s ascendancy is the result of forward thinking by the country’s leadership”

One forward thinking of China is to move its operation through its state-owned enterprises to Africa, contaminating outside communities instead.[1]

[1]: https://hir.harvard.edu/not-so-green-technology-the-complica... "Not So “Green” Technology: The Complicated Legacy of Rare Earth Mining"

That "forward thinking" - just done by occidental leaders and called outsourcing - is what brought China in this privileged position in the first place. Should we expect next an African country rising to superpower statute?
Is there any open data about how big a market China is for Nature, Elsevier etc.?
It's good news if you're in Maine:

Gem Hunters Found the Lithium America Needs. Maine Won’t Let Them Dig It Up

https://time.com/6294818/lithium-mining-us-maine/

not so good news if you're indigenous:

Tribes object. But a federal ruling approves construction of the largest lithium mine

https://www.npr.org/2023/07/17/1188204958/tribes-object-fede...

A mining company is hunting for lithium, right on the edge of wildlife refuge

https://phys.org/news/2023-07-company-lithium-edge-wildlife-...

and, of course, it's not just Lithium - Copper trumps sacred land:

Battle for Oak Flat: How Apache opposition to a copper mine became a religious liberty test

https://phys.org/news/2023-06-oak-flat-apache-opposition-cop...

The grand canyon was originally prospected for mining, they didn't build a railroad to the middle of nowhere for tourists after all. I won't be surprised if I live to see the day that national security trumps scenic detours. I feel like most people who want to see it have seen it, if we can put together a way to distribute the profits evenly to citizens like Alaska and Norway I think you'd win a lot of votes.
I wouldn’t dare bet against you but I find it a bit short sighted to say that those who want to see it have seen it.
Dear future kids, here was a wonderful and poetic place. Daddy and friends needed those rocks slot to support the level of comfort they accustomed to. Here’s a 4D .metavers file so you can enjoy it too as I did! Kiss, your loving grandpa.
Asianometry made a couple of recent videos on rare earth elements. They aren't that rare but the concentration is so low and they are always mixed in with other elements so it takes a lot of processing.

China‘s Iron Grip on the Rare Earth Magnet

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxpKcbg30e4

A Semiconductor Rare Earths Problem?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caEsW5h3dhA

> They aren't that rare but the concentration is so low and they are always mixed in with other elements so it takes a lot of processing.

I think the original meaning of "rare" may have been in opposition to dense, rather than meaning scarce. They are not densely concentrated in the substrate they're taken from as you say. From M-W rare, "3. marked by wide separation of component particles."

If you’ve never seen this you really should to understand how bad this can go.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20150402-the-worst-place-...

I've been to some of these 'toxic lakes'.

Usually they consist of a few things in large quantities that are easy to neutralize - eg. sulphuric or nitric acid. And thats mixed in with small amounts of something that is natural yet toxic - eg. Mercury, lead, arsenic, etc.

The whole lot is typically in the form of a slurry with solids and lots of water.

It has to be kept wet, or the toxic solids will turn into dust and blow everywhere. It can't be allowed to get too wet, or it will overflow the containment pond.

As far as I can see, there is no real solution - while the acids can be neutralized, the heavy metals can't be locked back into solid rock form - at least not at the scale of these ponds. I suspect the best thing to do (apart from not mining at all) is to just make ponds as big as possible and let them settle for as many decades as possible, and eventually they'll turn back into mudstone-like rock.

With the exception of arsenic, most of these metals can be effectively immobilized as the sulfides. That's how they naturally occur, and the sulfides are so inert that early life never encountered the metal ions or adapted to them — which is probably why they are so toxic! The sulfides of lead, mercury, cadmium and copper are all very stable and insoluble.

So the solution may be quite simple: once the lake pH is adjusted to be not too acidic, pumping hydrogen sulfide into it should entrain any heavy metals in their natural form. This is a dangerous process, though, because hydrogen sulfide is an extremely toxic gas.

Now, this may be naïve or uninformed, but...

Shouldn't it be possible to take that slurry and deliberately dry it out much faster, possibly even including a step that separates the products to some extent for separate processing or storage? If it were being dried out in a sealed processing facility, rather than a pond open to the air (and wildlife), the toxic dust wouldn't be a problem—indeed, it would be the end goal. Turn it to dust, compress the dust into something you can seal in a jar or whatever and then store the sealed jar. Or potentially even sell it; I bet some of these toxic byproducts would actually be something someone else wants for their own industrial processes.

Obviously even if it's possible, this isn't done because it would be more expensive—but if we, say, were more concerned with health and safety than profits, couldn't this be much less time-consuming and risky to the local water table than just letting it sit for decades or centuries?

Yes, you could dry it (for an immense energy cost). But now you have a toxic powder. And it's harder to store that powder than it was in slurry form.

The massive volume is by far the biggest problem, compared to the (relatively low) toxicity.

> Now, this may be naïve or uninformed, but...

Like, that costs money and stuff.

The health of the global climate is so much more important than the local environments damaged by critical mineral mining. I'm sure a few progressive European countries like my own will volunteer to clean up as long as we start mining yesterday and start building more wind turbines, solar panels, and mass energy storage batteries.
This article should be used in standardized testing for how much bullshit someone can ingest in thirty seconds. Kudos to the author and anyone who can get through all of it as written.
isn't that the quest of every galaxy wars movie...
And the wars haven't started yet. Soon though.

Driving your electric car straight to hell on a road paved with feelings.

Ukraine certainly is rich in minerals (and food production):

https://ukraineinvest.gov.ua/en/industries/mining/#:~:text=U....

Several counter points:

- singling out electrical vehicles is a bit disingenuous; there are lots of other consumers of rare earths. E.g. combustion engines have lots of exotic things on board and cobalt is used in oil refining. Lots of other industries use exotic minerals.

- A lot of this stuff can be recycled and already is. Especially valuable commodities used in batteries.

- There are alternate battery chemistries already being used in electric cars that have a lot less exotic materials. LFP batteries use no cobalt. Sodium ion batteries use no cobalt or lithium. Likewise, Tesla announced new engines that don't depend on rare earths a few montsh ago.

- Minerals aside, petrochemicals seem to have caused/enabled an awful lot of bad behavior
If only we knew how to build things so you didn't need a 2000kg metal box to go buy a packet of crisps.
Sorry, VanMoof folded, now the only other option for me to travel like a citizen of the 21st century is gone. Back into my electrified F150 I guess...
While it would be nice if everyone could use a bicycle instead, unfortunately people are really stubborn about hanging on to their cars.
My mother is 95. She's not walking anywhere. My wife has a bone spur in her heel. She can walk, but not far.

So, yeah, a world without cars sounds great if you're young and healthy, and there's good public transportation and bike paths and such. But for some people, it's cars or being a shut-in, and so, yeah, they are really stubborn about hanging on to their cars.

They're not the majority of car users. But you can't ignore them when you design your utopian future.

Since it is a utopia, we’ll make sure that people like your mother and your wife get places near the center of town so they can walk to shops and restaurants. It might be hard to fit everybody, but it beats climate change or mineral wars, right?
You should see all the wars that have occurred due to oil. You may be surprised.
No, I wouldn't be surprised. I'm very well aware. That's why I so negative of the Pollyanna greenwashing of electric cars.
That’s the worst part of the AI race and “clean” electric cars. Behind the scenes the destruction they cause is more than you can imagine.

We think electric cars and GPUs are pushing us ahead. But in reality we are driving the wedge in deeper.

I’m afraid where we end up is like James Hansen said about fossil fuels, but relevant in general, with a "different, practically uninhabitable planet" by triggering a "low-end runaway greenhouse effect."

The only way to actually stop the destruction is if we slow down mining and learn to do more with what we have already mined. To make what we already consumed reusable and stop mining altogether if possible. For fossil fuels, and the rare earth minerals destroying fresh water and food supplies and air quality.

Electric cars are helping, but maybe not as much one can be lead to believe. The biggest danger about them is possibly that people may believe they are a big step forward. They are an important but rather small step forward.

Electric cars will reduce demand for gasoline. Some people say this won't affect how much oil is pumped out of the ground, because we still need the other fractions.

That's not exactly the case though - gasoline is effectively now subsidizing the heavier fractions. When that changes, heavier fractions will also be more expensive.

How that will affect demand for crude, I'm not equipped to tell.

The most interesting things about electric cars may be if they transform how our grid works, from baseload to (much more) spot-market.

I thought the fractions were relatively straightforward to convert to balance demand? I don't really have good intuition for the economics of it though.
If I understand correctly, we want more gasoline than the natural fraction in petroleum. So refineries "crack" longer molecules to create shorter ones, increasing the amount of gasoline.

I'm not sure if that's the gasoline subsidizing the heavier fractions. It might be the other way around. There would be more heavier fractions available if we didn't crack them, and therefore they'd be cheaper.

Technology wise, sure. But I can imagine it could take a lot of effort to convert all refineries. And I think it’s much easier to crack heavier fractions than to combine lighter hydrocarbons to heavier?
Is this satire? With the username, I’m unsure. I don’t know why anyone would mention GPUs and AI in the same context as electric vehicles.

Mining isn’t a huge source of greenhouse emissions. It’s not good for the local environment, but it’s necessary. Recycling and reuse is also a grand idea, you’re right about that. Except for plastics, which never made sense.

Electric cars are unequivocally a good thing. Every electric car takes a fossil fuel guzzling car off the road. Once a family has an electric car they tend to use it whenever possible, making the effect even more pronounced. Some people float the ridiculous argument that they emit more greenhouse gases in manufacturing and mining than they save over their lifetime. Firstly, gasoline cars also cost energy to manufacture and gasoline also takes energy to extract and refine and transport. Secondly, electric cars break even within the first few years of use. Even in todays world where the electric grid still has a lot of fossil fuel generation.

In 30 years we are going to look back at all the "unequivocally good" electric family cars and wish we'd used the materials and energy on civilizational resilience, not to temporarily extend the unsustainable habits of the planet's richest minority

Electric vehicles can be a good thing if we also dramatically reduce our consumption of transportation and bring our political systems, lifestyles and economies in harmony with planetary boundaries. Without a corresponding sea change in expectations and way of life, they just dig us deeper into the energy trap.

> In 30 years we are going to look back at all the "unequivocally good" electric family cars and wish we'd used the materials and energy on civilizational resilience, not to temporarily extend the unsustainable habits of the planet's richest minority

EVs are key to “civilizational resilience”, when combined with the sharp increase in solar and renewable energy that we’re also going through.

Fantasizing about telling all of society to stop going places isn’t realistic. The future doesn’t have to be miserable to also be sustainable.

Not sure they are unequivocally good — maybe if we had the option between electric cars, and no cars, no cars might be preferable. But that is not the world we live in. Among the options we actually have, electric cars seem to be one of the least bad picks.
> Mining isn’t a huge source of greenhouse emissions.

Heh ??! Mining is a huge source of GHG, especially if you count scope 3 (you should): https://www.mining-technology.com/features/cop26-scope3-net-...

> Within mining, scope 1 and 2 emissions account for 4%-7% of global greenhouse gas emissions. This rises to 28% of global emissions however when accounting for scope 3

EVs, while undeniably more efficient, seem very good at abstracting the costs away from the end user. Pair this with autonomy that reduces friction but has its own associated costs and I'm afraid that the increase in use will eclipse the gains in efficiency, leading to a Jevon's Paradox where the overall consumption increases.
> abstracting the costs away from the end user.

The vast majority of costs are already abstracted away. When you drive to work, do you think about the massive environmental cost of all the concrete and steel that went into building the roads and bridges that you drive over?

Yet those costs, which nobody talks about, are of similar scale to the environmental costs of all cars.

This is why every serious plan for reducing transportation emissions also includes a significant decrease in Vehicle Miles Traveled. It’s not enough to keep driving everywhere, but in electric cars instead.
The costs of cars and oil are already thoroughly abstracted away.
Jevons paradox doesn't make sense in the context of purely competitive products. If it were, the effect would be expected to be the same for gas powered cars unless they were somehow prohibitively more expensive, which they are not.