Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

China Wrestles with the Toxic Aftermath of Rare Earth Mining

e360.yale.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 92 posts

Re: China Wrestles with the Toxic Aftermath of Rare Earth Mining

#31

Post by ThomPete »

pjc50 wrote: post #15
ThomPete wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are most likely using products based on mining to write that comment. Doesn't that make you complicit if we are to follow your hard stance here?

Everyone is complicit in everything to a slight degree. That's simply no longer a useful thing to say, nor is it a means to dismiss an argument that something should not be done. It's just a statement that disentangling yourself from the system comes at an extremely high cost, if it is possible at all.

Pointing the ethical/moral finger at someone else while you are part of the problem is the very definition of disentangling yourself from the system.

Some of us are perfectly fine with the negative consequences because we believe the positive far outweighs the negative.

In other words, there are other ways to think about this which actually do make it useful to say.

Re: China Wrestles with the Toxic Aftermath of Rare Earth Mining

#32

Post by ThomPete »

imtringued wrote: post #29
ThomPete wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are most likely using products based on mining to write that comment. Doesn't that make you complicit if we are to follow your hard stance here?

Only a little. Mining can be less environmentally harmful if we make that our priority. China didn't care and bankrupted the environmentally concious competitors.

I agree but that's a completely different and much more constructive discussion to have rather than just saying

"Mining is a truly nasty business, and not just environmentally."

Re: China Wrestles with the Toxic Aftermath of Rare Earth Mining

#33

Post by titzer »

westiseast wrote: post #5

Perhaps it’s churlish to mention, but... China was happy to ignore environmental standards in order to corner the market in rare earth minerals. American miners couldn’t compete because they were already “internalizing” the environmental costs, and were priced out of the market. Once China had put everyone else out of business (and blocked foreign businesses from mining inside China), it started not only reducing out…

Now you realize how the game theory of economics is fundamentally at odds with the natural world and sustainability. It always pays to defect now, and the loudest voices are usually the rich players who moan about economic growth and "burdensome regulations". Mining and logging in the US was very much like this before regulation, but that was on a much smaller scale, with simpler technology and less energy available to scale up. My advice: pay attention closely to environmental policy and don't let regulations be rolled back in the name of growth!

Re: China Wrestles with the Toxic Aftermath of Rare Earth Mining

#34

Post by ljf »

imtringued wrote: post #29
ThomPete wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are most likely using products based on mining to write that comment. Doesn't that make you complicit if we are to follow your hard stance here?

Only a little. Mining can be less environmentally harmful if we make that our priority. China didn't care and bankrupted the environmentally concious competitors.

Let's not forget, that the buyers of the minerals had total choice where to get their supplies from. They could have purchased from American or other mines, but chose to go with the cheapest - knowing both that doing this would bankrupt safer mines, and leave environmental waste in China.

The Chinese mines are not blameless, but they are only part of the 'profit at all costs' mindset that many shareholders demand.

Re: China Wrestles with the Toxic Aftermath of Rare Earth Mining

#35

Post by agumonkey »

westiseast wrote: post #5

Perhaps it’s churlish to mention, but... China was happy to ignore environmental standards in order to corner the market in rare earth minerals. American miners couldn’t compete because they were already “internalizing” the environmental costs, and were priced out of the market. Once China had put everyone else out of business (and blocked foreign businesses from mining inside China), it started not only reducing out…

It's "always" like that. Someone lowers the bar to grab the market until collapse. Annoying.

Re: China Wrestles with the Toxic Aftermath of Rare Earth Mining

#36

Post by Al-Khwarizmi »

lsd5you wrote: post #17
westiseast wrote: post #5

Perhaps it’s churlish to mention, but... China was happy to ignore environmental standards in order to corner the market in rare earth minerals. American miners couldn’t compete because they were already “internalizing” the environmental costs, and were priced out of the market. Once China had put everyone else out of business (and blocked foreign businesses from mining inside China), it started not only reducing out…

Which is why tariffs make a lot of sense. Yet there has been this massive movement of reaganite/right wing tariffs bashing for decades now - where the mantra of tariffs causing economic harm is mindlessly repeated. You would think they didn't generate tax revenue (and thus reduce taxes/improve economics elsewhere), and where not easier to collect than many other taxes. I'm not denying the dangers. I can see how count…

Honestly if country A can make a product X% cheaper than country B because of having less stringent regulation (be it environmental, quality, labor laws...) it's just logical to me that country B should impose a tariff of X% on that product.

I'm not much of a free-market capitalism, but if you have to be, then a free market is not a free market if not everyone is playing by the same rules, right?

Re: China Wrestles with the Toxic Aftermath of Rare Earth Mining

#37

Post by ivanhoe »

keymone wrote: post #16
digitalengineer wrote: post #4

In the forth quarter of 2018, 46.89 million iPhones were sold worldwide. That's just the iPhones. Wouldn't it be great if products from Apple were easier to repair or upgrade instead of encouraging consumers to buy the latest model? It would also make it easier to recycle. How much mining would that prevent?

So what happens to old iPhones? Hard to believe they are all in a dump somewhere.

I still use my iPhone5 as a 2nd phone, and it's still totally usable after 10 years with the original battery and updates from Apple available until recently. I totally see myself buying 2nd hand iphones to my kids as a cheap solution to keep them off my phone (they're thankfully still young enough not to care about the fashion and brands)

Re: China Wrestles with the Toxic Aftermath of Rare Earth Mining

#38

Post by pjc50 »

ThomPete wrote: post #31
pjc50 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone is complicit in everything to a slight degree. That's simply no longer a useful thing to say, nor is it a means to dismiss an argument that something should not be done. It's just a statement that disentangling yourself from the system comes at an extremely high cost, if it is possible at all.

Pointing the ethical/moral finger at someone else while you are part of the problem is the very definition of disentangling yourself from the system. Some of us are perfectly fine with the negative consequences because we believe the positive far outweighs the negative. In other words, there are other ways to think about this which actually do make it useful to say.

That doesn't make the negatives go away. Mining is a nasty business, even if it's also beneficial.

Re: China Wrestles with the Toxic Aftermath of Rare Earth Mining

#39

Post by yorwba »

RHSeeger wrote: post #23
westiseast wrote: post #5

Perhaps it’s churlish to mention, but... China was happy to ignore environmental standards in order to corner the market in rare earth minerals. American miners couldn’t compete because they were already “internalizing” the environmental costs, and were priced out of the market. Once China had put everyone else out of business (and blocked foreign businesses from mining inside China), it started not only reducing out…

It's not churlish at all. > Environmental experts and local officials say the cost of the cleanup should not be shouldered by the Chinese government alone. The Chinese companies and government knew what they were doing and benefited greatly from their actions. I would argue that they are exactly the ones that should be shouldering the the cost... alone.

Seems like you agree then that the cost should not be shouldered by the government alone, but also by the companies who benefited.

The article mentions that most mining operations were illegal until recently and the Longnan government only managed to shut down the last of them in 2017. Some local officials probably lined their pockets by looking the other way, but the central government likely didn't see any of those profits.

Now that the industry is controlled by state-owned companies, stricter regulations were introduced, which is exactly the opposite of what you'd expect if the government were willing to tolerate the pollution in exchange for profit.

Re: China Wrestles with the Toxic Aftermath of Rare Earth Mining

#40

Post by Al-Khwarizmi »

ThomPete wrote: post #31
pjc50 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone is complicit in everything to a slight degree. That's simply no longer a useful thing to say, nor is it a means to dismiss an argument that something should not be done. It's just a statement that disentangling yourself from the system comes at an extremely high cost, if it is possible at all.

Pointing the ethical/moral finger at someone else while you are part of the problem is the very definition of disentangling yourself from the system. Some of us are perfectly fine with the negative consequences because we believe the positive far outweighs the negative. In other words, there are other ways to think about this which actually do make it useful to say.

And others among us think the negative in certain aspects of the system can outweigh the positive and things could be improved, and it doesn't mean that we should live in the wilderness hunting our own food if we want to criticise any aspect of said system.

The computer mrspuratic is using exists thanks to products from current mining... true. But it could also exist thanks to products from more sustainable mining, if the world worked differently. It's not like he was given a choice.

So your kind of argument, if you intend it to discredit criticism or making other people appear incoherent with their principles, is basically a fallacy.

Post reply on HN