China has been mining these rare metals in Africa for the last decade. Infusing the local tribal/warlord/3rd world government with mega yuan. Follow the money trail.
Or another example of politicians are found in the Detroit city council not realizing they had lead issues…follow the money. The stock market is not a single indicator of wealth or health people use it as.
That's just not true. Please share with us how the lower class and middle class advanced in yearly earnings.
Do you really want to compare 2008 to 2016? You might want to look at a chart of wealth growth that covers those years before you post anymore ... For me personally, it was a period of explosive growth, going from a negative net worth at the end Bush's terms to owning two houses, a business, and nice stock portfolio. Your mileage apparently varies. But for America, I bet it's pretty hard to find a measure of the economy what was worse in 2016 than in 2008 ... but, please tell me...
True - this is just up the road from where I live, but I'm not well informed on the situation. Might be our version of the sugar industry, as mining is the historical industry up in these parts. The region was a major contributor to the military building initiatives during WWII.
Readers digest..there is a scenario where the mine could negatively impact the environment. How much risk one is willing to support is a political issue, not a scientific one. Sounds like Kushner was bribed to lobby for permit approvals and increase the level of risk the regulatory agencies were willing deem acceptable. Just say no doesn't work. These resources are needed and mining in the US has some of the most environmentally friendly mining requirements of anywhere in the world. Find a compromise or place a bonding requirement or both but just say no isn't smart
Yeah I kinda got that much. But such instances really depend on the specifics - costs and benefits. As a general rule my starting point is not to ravage pristine environmental areas, especially where we live. But whether to move forward or not depends on exactly how damaging the impact could potentially be vs how transformative the additional supply would be. I just don’t have the answers to those questions.
underground mines don't ravage landscapes. processing is above ground and away from pristine environmental areas. at closing, above ground processing area are reclaimed and replanted How It Works - Twin Metals (twin-metals.com)
Lithium might be out. Some Maryland researchers got a case of the crabs, and now claim that chitin from the crustaceans, combined with zinc, does just about as good a job with rechargeable batteries as lithium. Chitin batteries are also biodegradable, and lithium batteries are not. Scientists discover lithium replacement that may revolutionize EV batteries: ‘99.7% efficient after over 400 hours of use’ Bonus: we could use the lithium we save on battery production for treatment of Trump supporters and other mental disorders.
Is there a serious think piece anywhere that goes through cost-benefit? The linked pieces (and what little else I could find) seem to only show a substantial future need for lithium and other minerals to be mined, necessary for future desirable technologies, with a potentially productive mine blocked by government cancelling the lease for the mine. On the governmental side, we know the Obama administration failed to renew the lease. No information over whether that decision is purely discretionary, whether it requires an administrative record and findings over which the leaseholder can seek legal review. The Trump administration reversed for corrupt reasons, but that is not necessarily dispositive. Even if the decision could be justified, that Administration would be too lazy or ignorant to create a record and would take a bribe because that is their default model of governance. I saw no detailed analysis of the expected yield of the mine, how certain and quantified the mineral deposits were, and what it would take to extract in terms of access roads other removal, etc. I know the company has a schematic showing no disturbance but that is likely PR. Also saw no analysis of whether the feared environmental impact would only come from an accident or from regular operations, injections of other substances to aid extraction. Whether that would impact the water systems etc. All that seems necessary to judge the decision not to renew, not simply, there is need for the minerals to be mined. To use a crude military analogy, it would be good to take Hill X, without considering how necessary/indispensable it is or considering the likely losses in taking it/holding it. Two general legal observations which may or may not be applicable here. We do have an overly burdensome environmental permitting regimen with excessive veto points. But the extractive industry capital also does not bear the risk of damage or mishap under our current regimen, like WV poisoned streams. It is the classic privatized profit/socialized risk so common in our current models, where those that extract profit bear no responsibility for the externalities
