Hacker News Reader

Comment by iamhamm | Hacker News Reader

Fire isn’t the hazard we need to be concerned about for Lithium-ion, it’s the destructive mining and the subsequent hazmat disposal that should be worrying everyone. The lithium mining companies are filing claims all over my county and the proposed large scale excavation of extremely sensitive desert dry lake habitats is just disgusting. I’m no fan of oil, but at least there you drill a hole and not remove a few cubic miles of the earth. Seeing the battery lifecycle up close has left me depressed about our options…

View on HN

The issue I have with this is that if we aren't allowed to mine in the desert where there is one sensitive shrub, like Thacker Pass, then how are we ever supposed to mine anything ever again. It seems like the perfect place to mine with minimal destruction.

The other option is we never mine anything ever again and let countries with less environmental protections do the dirty work which is net worse for the environment.

Oh you can mine lithium, just Not In My BackYard.

The NIMBY question is a legitimate social one to solve. It’s easy to sit and say that, but if you were facing a giant pit, dust problems, and leaking toxic mine tailings in your literal backyard, as I am, you might find yourself with a different point of view on the utility of it. It’s also possible you can truly look past that and accept it, I don’t know, but in my case this is the equivalent of bulldozing a favorite city park because corporate interests in the supply chain need to build batteries. Maybe it needs to happen, I don’t know, but I’ll tell you it’s a bitter pill to swallow and one that doesn’t come with much empathy from the folks calling for bulldozing my backyard for their benefit.

You're right that it's not a simple problem. Individuals face consequences for decisions made by people with no stake. On the whole though, mining done in a well-regulated country with accountability and citizens with a means to environmental justice is better than mining done in countries where you get your lot and die of lead poisoning at 40.

Don't put your backyard in my lithium mine!

Sorry if my comment upset you. I hope you got what you needed from this reply.

I think I would need to write you a book to capture my feelings around this correctly and in an organized manner, so apologies if it’s disjointed or comes off flippant. I’m a scientist by education and I fundamentally recognize your correctness, but it’s difficult to reconcile the experience of what is happening. When we did the tortoise roundup last year, knowing there would be 50% mortality, to put in a new solar farm and when the bulldozers arrived and started clearing the Joshua Trees, it literally hurt to watch. Now there’s the push for lithium mining and hundreds of more acres of solar farms in areas that are socially important to us. The primary benefit from all of these projects first benefits others (we net export everything) and if often feels unappreciated. For example, I think we all have collective groans when the occasional article comes from California lamenting water limitations for lawn watering while we watch Lake Mead drop to the lowest level since it was created. At the same time, I know you’re right about this becoming some other poor schleps problem and I’d never want to wish that on anyone. I realized recently that this area is resource exploited and I never understood the notion of how resource exploitation harms people mentally, but I do now. I also might be getting the most important life lesson in my 40+ years on earth - I’m a high net worth, white, tech leader, that adopted this barren place. I wouldn’t have missed a beat in the past to just call for bulldozing the desert. Man, let me tell you about “shoe on the other foot” feelings when they kick you in the jaw like this. I guess my only ask to you, or anyone that reads this comment: maybe this is the right thing to do, but please have empathy when it happens.

For the most part here in the US, you don't. You outsource it to countries that either have no environmental regulation or look the either way so long as bribes are paid.

It's cheaper and technically "clean" since you aren't actually doing any damage or pollution directly.

You kind of have to choose what sort of destruction you want: either you can have marginally more mining for the minerals required for battery production or you can have ecosystem wide damage due to further global warming. There is no free lunch.

I'll note though that eventually the fossil fuels run out, so the mining will need to be done anyway. It's only a question of now vs later with the later option being "habitat destruction AND massive global temperature rise" and the now option being just "habitat destruction". So habitats are getting destroyed either way.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com