Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

dogm34t_ t1_j42i8xz wrote

Get ready to destroy the earth for profit.

72

Noahdl88 t1_j42ii84 wrote

Conflicted uovote.

100% gonna happen, but upset about it just the same.

The truth is controversial.

25

dogm34t_ t1_j42lhmb wrote

Very much so. And I agree with you.

2

Noahdl88 t1_j42u5jn wrote

What's worse is instead of spending a little to save humanity (the earth will survive fine if not better without us) the billionaire class wants to spend exponentially more money to take a garbage planet like Mars, and "fix" it.

1

ztreHdrahciR t1_j42use4 wrote

Colonizing Mars is stupid. Orders of magnitude more expensive and dangerous than just fixing what we've already ruined. I don't only blame billionaires. Regular people are too short sighted to see beyond the next tweet or insta post (or Reddit comment)

0

ntgco t1_j42yiyr wrote

Get ready? They've been doing that since money was invented.

If we can get rid of Co2 production via Petrochemicals it is a benefit to every living organism on this planet. I would trade rare earth mining for batteries over endless oil consumption any day.

22

asdaaaaaaaa t1_j42zmmk wrote

> Get ready to keep destroying the earth for profit.

Fixed it for you.

6

Juffin t1_j43xdx6 wrote

Yeah let's not destroy the Earth. And keep buying those metals from China.

4

jakekara4 t1_j441l8d wrote

These metals are necessary for electric cars. People want to think EVs are green. But they’re dependent upon intensive resource extraction.

5

CaptainAxiomatic t1_j47bxrc wrote

It's not only for electric cars. These metals are needed for wind turbines and electric bikes, too.

2

DM_DM_DND t1_j449hj3 wrote

Mining metals is significantly greener and more sustainable than using fossil fuels. Engineering can potentially stabilize the ground around a mine, and minimize the environmental damage. Undoing the damage of fossil fuels involves basically reversing thermodynamics.

4

eks91 t1_j44j3we wrote

But electric car will save the environment lol

0

internet_chump t1_j42oyrh wrote

These minerals will get mined in China regardless, so the energy consumption to mine them is essentially a wash.

The energy used to transport them will decrease because of the lesser distance.

I trust Sweden more than China when it comes to mitigation of environmental impacts of tailing ponds, habitat loss, etc.

More electric cars means more efficient use of energy and increased use of renewable sources. That means less oil from the Alberta Tar Sands, for those of you concerned about the arctic.

Overall I see this as a net positive.

55

CreativeMischief t1_j43yxyt wrote

Lmfao electric cars an insignificant factor when it comes to climate change. The solution isn’t more environmentally friendly cars, it’s adequate public transportation to significantly reduce our reliance on cars in the first place

16

DM_DM_DND t1_j4487nv wrote

Electric vehicles are still a meaningful improvement as long as your grid is green. If the grid isn't green, it's largely meaningless.

10

ZeenTex t1_j44olcb wrote

Iirc, consensus is that electric cars, even with electricity from coal, is still 60 to 80 percent less polluting than a petrol fueled car.

1

DM_DM_DND t1_j44terr wrote

That is generally true (but depends on costs associated with moving the electricity) although coal is so absolutely terrible that it's still pretty bad. I suppose it's probably serviceable if you have transitioning sources like natural gas.

Still, a bus is better if you have anything like carrying capacity number of people.

4

ZeenTex t1_j44va9p wrote

Well, transporting fuel has its costs too.

Also, agree with the public transport thing, but people would revolt if you denied them the use of their dear cars.

(I don't have a car by they way, nor a drivers license even, but have the luxury to live in a place with excellent, cheap public transport, taxi's and no daily commute due to my job)

1

trelium06 t1_j437yjz wrote

Ideally, you use up all the resources of your geopolitical foes even if it enriches them and save your nations resources for later

6

internet_chump t1_j43edv9 wrote

And if your "geopolitical foe" uses all the riches you've helped them gain to expand their influence into Africa and gain more resources?

Or if they cut off supply and you're woefully behind on being able to capitalize on your own resources?

Besides the obvious strategical failings of this notion, we don't live in some stupid game where people are keeping score or will be declared "the winner". If you're approaching geopolitics with the attitude that there will be both winners and losers then you don't understand the first thing about it. The human race is facing extinction. Either everyone wins or everyone dies.

11

PaloLV t1_j43ragt wrote

What most people don't realize is that rare earth metals aren't rare. The only difficulty and problem with producing them is the incredibly dirty refining process. There are huge deposits all over the world but we've let China take the market lead in production by letting them pollute their land rather than ours.

50

ZeenTex t1_j44od2v wrote

Yup, many of these deposits all over the world.

Refining can be done properly without hurting the environment too much but that costs money of course.

China skipped that step and so can do it cheap than the rest, plus cheap labour helps too. So they pretty much cornered the market and then decided to limit certain exports.

15

Erisagi t1_j44q0s7 wrote

So what does that mean for this news? Is this resource meaningful only if Sweden decides to pollute their land?

3

PaloLV t1_j44x2hq wrote

It means unless Sweden is willing to spend a ton of money to make it less damaging to the environment they will pollute the heck out of their land. If they choose to spend that money they won't be able to produce at anywhere close to competitive prices.

Unless they want to make a strategic decision to subsidize the industry to not be helpless to the whims of China it doesn't make economic sense to develop it. The U.S. is considering just that since our military and high tech industry requires large quantities of rare earths.

6

Erisagi t1_j44yd3b wrote

The United States appears to have greater resources and incentives to develop this industry. Perhaps Sweden and our allies would prefer to rely on us. However, I wonder what sort of production capacity the United States would aim to achieve considering how it creates much pollution.

1

Fredthefree t1_j474tyz wrote

Yup, a lot of products use iron oxide(rust) and it's derivatives. To produce it in the U.S. you need do inside in a facility, contain the chemical run off, and can only produce a maximum amount per EPA regulations. In China, they just spray the metal outdoors and let the chemicals leech into the ground.

1

NohPhD t1_j43n1ld wrote

Considering that many of the ‘rare earth’ elements were discovered in the 18th and 19th centuries from ore that originated from Sweden, I’m simply shocked!

BTW, the US has large ore deposits of these elements too. Much of the rare earth ores also contain thorium, a radioactive element. When the US enacted environmental regulations requiring the safe disposition of the thorium contaminate, the production cost in the US increased. US mines shut down and mining and production moved offshore.

16

SecondTryBadgers t1_j42lg5u wrote

Well the location is becoming less arctic every year… :(

3

aister t1_j43v6b3 wrote

are they called black metal?

3

Scared-Tie t1_j44hazv wrote

China will buy it up, and use to for their own purposes.

2

StrangeChef t1_j451smz wrote

Rare earth metals aren't rare, they are called rare earth because they are usually unprofitable.

2

jens-2420 t1_j4611gt wrote

Not clear though if the mining will be profitable.

Fun fact: In Germany there are known rare earth sites with at least the same amount of metals, but they need 100 times the value to recover them.

Swedish company said in an interview today: 10 to 15 years till mining can start, at least.

2

HomeIsElsweyr t1_j477j62 wrote

Who wouldve thought kiruna would find minerals in the mine that is literally relocating the town

1

False_Fondant8429 t1_j482d6y wrote

Dont say this too loud !! The russians might take you next

1

Upstairs_Expert t1_j49tbej wrote

Yes, but there's no slave labor there to exploit.

1

ToxicAdamm t1_j42zxat wrote

All this will seem rather pointless when we start mining on the moon.

0

TheShadowKick t1_j43bg5i wrote

I think near Earth asteroid mining might come first. But yeah, lots of stuff out in space for us to mine, if we ever get around to it.

1

creamonyourcrop t1_j43d1jf wrote

Until the natives start resisting.......I have seen several documentaries on it.

2

dhuntergeo t1_j44p2jt wrote

Finally. Big find in a responsible country

0

otravez5150 t1_j4564a5 wrote

Go see it now before it's ruined by mining so your 3rd grader can have the latent iPhone

−2

sherm39 t1_j43ahjf wrote

Homo Sapiens remains on collision course with a planet Earth gone hostile to its further proliferation. From this perspective, rare earth mining is more of same. Species don't reverse their own decline.

−6