Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Monday June 07 2021, @06:38PM   Printer-friendly

Electric Car Batteries Are Turning This Country Into an Actual Hellscape:

As the demand for gadgets and electric cars grows, so too are the mining operations that dig up cobalt to use in lithium-ion batteries.

And that's become a serious problem for the Democratic Republic of the Congo, The New Yorker reports, which sits atop about 3.4 million metric tons of the stuff — half of the entire planet's supply. A massive, gold rush-like mining industry was born after residents in poverty-stricken areas discovered ore deposits under their homes. But now, many are finding that digging up the valuable mineral has failed to lift them out of poverty. And meanwhile, dangerous conditions are killing miners as exposure to the metal is poisoning both people and the environment.

A lack of regulations and enforcement over the mines has resulted in the miners, who risk their health and safety for financial security, being exploited by officials and traders who are unscrupulously lining their own pockets, according to The New Yorker. One miner told the publication that he now struggles to pay his $25 monthly rent even as the value of cobalt continues to soar — and the only alternative was to work at a major corporation's mine for considerably less money.

Meanwhile, thousands of children have been put to work as well, according to The New Yorker, some of whom say they can't remember the last time they could afford a meal. In order to keep them working, the kids are often even drugged with appetite suppressors.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday June 09 2021, @04:35AM (2 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday June 09 2021, @04:35AM (#1143426) Journal

    Starting with: how about we don't make it a "boom town" that extracts all the resources in the shortest time possible and work on a more sustainable schedule with less damage to the environment and people involved?

    What would the benefits of a more sustainable schedule be? I note several things that seem to be missing from your narrative. First, there's consider reduction in environmental harm from doing something quickly rather than over long periods of time. I think of mining a bit like pulling off a band aid. Pulling it off slowly can result in a long period of pain rather than a short period. You can far sooner revert land use back to something more wild. For example, doing boom mining rather than more sustainable mining means less land is needed to be under use as a mine at any given time.

    You also have time value of those resources. Resources now are significantly more valuable than resources in ten years and vastly more valuable than resources in a century. Finally, just like with land use, the faster you mine, the less people you actually need to do that work.

    What global pollution?

    What round earth? How could the 2020 election not have been stolen? Good night.

    Sorry, you being stupid is not an argument in favor of your position. Mining is notorious as a source of pollution, but as I already noted it is local pollution not global. You made this argument about scope and well, that's the scope.

  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday June 09 2021, @03:58PM (1 child)

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday June 09 2021, @03:58PM (#1143558)

    First, there's consider reduction in environmental harm from doing something quickly rather than over long periods of time.

    Really, how does that work? When you rush a job personally, do you make less mistakes or more? Spills, fires, broken equipment, all increase by rushing on a personal scale, and the effect is magnified in larger operations. When you hire someone quickly, do they do a better or worse job than when you take the time to find more ideal candidates? When you push your contractors 16 hours a day, 100+ hours a week, do they make less mistakes or more? When an extraction job takes the time to setup accidental discharge mitigation, drill with care for safe operation vs meeting a rush schedule, shutdown operations in marginal weather instead of pushing forward, do they do more environmental harm overall, or less?

    I think of mining a bit like pulling off a band aid.

    So you prefer strip mining? Slap-dash strip mining recently yielded some fun stories in Florida about a billions gallon retention pond filled with radioactive phosphate waste, about to break its holding walls because of "quick and dirty" practices in its management. The radioactivity isn't even the worst part, if all that phosphate dumps at once 100+ miles of coastline will be dealing with toxic algal bloom, dieoff of basically the entire foodchain up through sport and commercial fishes and sharks - anything not smart or capable enough to leave the area is going to die. This because the phosphate industry was in a hurry to do their mining and just slap up a holding pond "as efficiently as possible" from a dollar cost basis.

    Mining phosphate more slowly, with some added costs in the care taken for restoration, would mean smaller open pits during the process, not larger ones. More expensive phosphate means more expensive food, horror of horrors, we're all starving because there's not enough food production! Not.

    doing boom mining rather than more sustainable mining means less land is needed to be under use as a mine at any given time.

    I think your "common sense" is faulty again. If Williston, ND had taken 20 years to extract their resources instead of 2, they could have run with basically 10% of the extraction capacity, less land under use at any given time, less boom in the town, less disruption of the steady state in all sectors from environmental, to social, to petroleum market.

    I already noted it is local pollution not global.

    Sorry, you being stupid is nothing that impresses me. Burning cheap fossil fuels is indeed poisoning the entire planet - even if you don't care about coral reefs, arctic ice habitats, melting glaciers, migratory animals that are dying out because their climate range is ceasing to exist... that's the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. If we slowed our roll on fossil fuel consumption to 10% of the current rates, that pollution would be far better managed by the ecosystems of the world.

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 10 2021, @04:36AM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 10 2021, @04:36AM (#1143804) Journal

      Really, how does that work? When you rush a job personally, do you make less mistakes or more? Spills, fires, broken equipment, all increase by rushing on a personal scale, and the effect is magnified in larger operations. When you hire someone quickly, do they do a better or worse job than when you take the time to find more ideal candidates? When you push your contractors 16 hours a day, 100+ hours a week, do they make less mistakes or more? When an extraction job takes the time to setup accidental discharge mitigation, drill with care for safe operation vs meeting a rush schedule, shutdown operations in marginal weather instead of pushing forward, do they do more environmental harm overall, or less?

      I already stated several ways that works. A big one missed here is that by taking longer, you have more time and opportunity to make those spills, fires, broken equipment, etc. And you aren't actually proposing a more cautious approach because you propose doing the same thing at the same speed with the same man-power, just spread over a lot more mines.

      So you prefer strip mining? Slap-dash strip mining recently yielded some fun stories in Florida about a billions gallon retention pond filled with radioactive phosphate waste, about to break its holding walls because of "quick and dirty" practices in its management. The radioactivity isn't even the worst part, if all that phosphate dumps at once 100+ miles of coastline will be dealing with toxic algal bloom, dieoff of basically the entire foodchain up through sport and commercial fishes and sharks - anything not smart or capable enough to leave the area is going to die. This because the phosphate industry was in a hurry to do their mining and just slap up a holding pond "as efficiently as possible" from a dollar cost basis.

      So we're going slap-dash strip mine over a longer time span. For example, those radioactive phosphate waste ponds are sitting around for a few decades instead of a few years. Plenty of time to explore the extremes of weather and other such failure inducing events.

      Mining phosphate more slowly, with some added costs in the care taken for restoration, would mean smaller open pits during the process, not larger ones. More expensive phosphate means more expensive food, horror of horrors, we're all starving because there's not enough food production! Not.

      Unless, of course, they bring the same attention to detail and quality of service that you bring to this argument. Then it'll be a shitshow, but a decades long shitshow. There's no point to doing something bad slower when you can do it well, faster.

      I think your "common sense" is faulty again. If Williston, ND had taken 20 years to extract their resources instead of 2, they could have run with basically 10% of the extraction capacity, less land under use at any given time, less boom in the town, less disruption of the steady state in all sectors from environmental, to social, to petroleum market.

      Then they will require 10 Willistons for every Williston we have now - 10 Willistons for 10 times as long. That's 100 times the impact. That's the math you can't evade. You can blather on about how they'll take more care and so on, but they can and do take just as much care today.

      Sorry, you being stupid is nothing that impresses me. Burning cheap fossil fuels is indeed poisoning the entire planet - even if you don't care about coral reefs, arctic ice habitats, melting glaciers, migratory animals that are dying out because their climate range is ceasing to exist... that's the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. If we slowed our roll on fossil fuel consumption to 10% of the current rates, that pollution would be far better managed by the ecosystems of the world.

      "Burning cheap fossil fuels" isn't what mines do. You're conflating mining with consumption by non-miners. First rule of holes applies here.

      Second, we slow our "roll on fossil fuel consumption to 10% of the current rates", we'll kill a lot of people. Once again, the dynamic of poor people being high fertility people is ignored. And a lot of poor people are really hard on the ecosystems of the world. Maybe we should start by doing what works, like modern economies, and less of what doesn't work, like making more poor, ecosystem-destroying poor people.