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

41–50 of 92 posts

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

#41

Post by wayoutthere »

titzer wrote: post #33
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…

Policy doesn’t even need to be rolled back much of the time: they can just stall progress while they figure loopholes around the existing policies. Which has been the GOP strategy for almost 40 years.

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

#42

Post by shawnz »

dalbasal wrote: post #25
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we hear a lot of them but don't see them in practice because it would reduce profits. It's like any other solution to a problem of capitalism. Regarding regulation: something like a carbon tax is arguably pricing-in of an externality, but mandated by the government. That's actually what I think of when I suggest this, because I don't expect captialist actors to deal with these problems without being forced to…

That's what I meant, except a mature, existing example. Carbon tax is the biggest question on the table. A lot of economists like it because theory. I'm skeptical, tbh, even of quasi-dynamic versions (like taxing fuel), and I tend to think taxes/subsidies (for example) on the purchase of vehicles would work better. Open to have my mind changed though, hence the question. Where have laws been used to successfully crea…

So rather than a cost proportional to how much waste you actually create, you'd rather have it be an equal tax on all drivers? That would eliminate the whole benefit of a carbon tax for middle class: If you're just driving to work every day then you shouldn't have to pay as much as the people and organizations who are creating substantially more waste than you are. I think this approach would ostracize drivers even worse than current approaches.

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

#43

Post by KaoruAoiShiho »

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.

They didn't benefit though, they were clear losers.

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

#44

Post by bin0 »

Al-Khwarizmi wrote: post #36
lsd5you wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It's not to prevent a competitive industry which can just produce something cheaper but also to prevent governments which actively use banned practices to give their nation an unfair advantage. More here:

https://twitter.com/adamscrabble/status/1094717028009689089

https://twitter.com/adamscrabble/status/1085193754787512320

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

#45

Post by dalbasal »

wffurr wrote: post #22
dalbasal wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pricing externalities has become such a common comment. Does anyone know good examples (family led also, but successful mostly) of pricing externalities? I mean the alternative is regulation and/or legislation. Those work pretty well when a reasonable (ie production still happens) of harmful processes/methods. Eg banning CFCs in certain products. I know of examples where these were deployed. Tldr: what is the best, b…

The cost of regulatory compliance is the way to price in externalities. The other option is a lawsuit after the damage is done.

That's not quite "pricing."

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

#46

Post by tim333 »

yorwba wrote: post #39
RHSeeger wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>As far back as 1992, Deng Xiaoping stressed that “the Middle East has oil; China has rare earths.” (https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevehanke/2019/06/27/chinas-ra... )

The government probably knew what was going on and encouraged it.

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

#47

Post by ptah »

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…

that sounds exactly like the strategy used by large corporations like Amazon and Starbucks to rid the marketplace of smaller competitors. Things like elaborate tax structures and subsidies not available to small businesses https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crickhowell-welsh-town...

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

#48

Post by arcticfox »

adrianN wrote: post #18
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…

So now American miners can start being cost competitive again.

> So now American miners

They don't exist anymore though. According to Australia, all of the rare earth expertise is in China now, so it's not as simple as just reopening, and in fact might be very difficult

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

#49

Post by tim333 »

Al-Khwarizmi wrote: post #36
lsd5you wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That sounds sensible but the devil's in the details. How do you figure how much of X% is environmental? Do you insist the Chinese have similar pay and conditions for workers? How do you check where the rare earths you are buying in say Singapore actually came from?

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

#50

Post by mechagodzilla »

dalbasal wrote: post #25
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we hear a lot of them but don't see them in practice because it would reduce profits. It's like any other solution to a problem of capitalism. Regarding regulation: something like a carbon tax is arguably pricing-in of an externality, but mandated by the government. That's actually what I think of when I suggest this, because I don't expect captialist actors to deal with these problems without being forced to…

That's what I meant, except a mature, existing example. Carbon tax is the biggest question on the table. A lot of economists like it because theory. I'm skeptical, tbh, even of quasi-dynamic versions (like taxing fuel), and I tend to think taxes/subsidies (for example) on the purchase of vehicles would work better. Open to have my mind changed though, hence the question. Where have laws been used to successfully crea…

To directly answer your question, at least in the US, waste removal is something we’ve largely managed to handle this way. For the most part, almost no one burns their trash, or dumps it in rivers/oceans/lakes, or on the street, all of which are common practices historically (and still practice elsewhere, unfortunately). We have rules about how landfills need to be managed, we pay companies to haul it away and dump it (either through property taxes or directly paying a waste company).

Notably, we are not doing this when it comes to CO2, we’re still just dumping it in the common atmosphere even though the costs to everyone will be absurdly high.

Post reply on HN