China Wrestles with the Toxic Aftermath of Rare Earth Mining • Hacker News Board

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

#61

Post by mc32 » Tue, Jul 02, 2019, 1:29 PM UTC

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 person, looks like they have some environmental role, seems to be talking about future mining. That future mining should internalize the externalities in its price, which seems fair enough.

I don’t think they are asking companies to help with their current cleanup. (That would expose them to similar claims in other countries which serve their industries).

But your major point is right that they were more than happy to dump rare earths to corner a market and are now suffering the consequences of that policy.

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

#62

Post by seanmcdirmid » Tue, Jul 02, 2019, 1:33 PM UTC

ljf wrote: post #34

imtringued wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They didn’t really have a choice though. Oh sure, those companies could pay twice as much as their competitors, but they would simply go out of business and not exist anymore. So if they existed before, they can’t exist now.

It’s all predicted by the free market: the mines that had higher costs because they followed environmental regulations can’t compete with those that don’t, likewise companies that purchase from more expensive sources can’t compete with those that purchase from cheaper ones, since ultimately consumers are going to choose the cheaper product.

Hence the need for regulation and perhaps even trade restrictions to force the right choices to be made.

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

#63

Post by blunte » Tue, Jul 02, 2019, 1:33 PM UTC

I disagree with this:

"Environmental experts and local officials say the cost of the cleanup should not be shouldered by the Chinese government alone, but also by the rare earths industry and the global companies and consumers that benefit from these technologies."

The mining companies should bear the cost, since it was a cost that they simply ignored at the time. If that cost had been factored into their business, prices for their materials would have been higher (and the consumers would have paid).

Instead, like many businesses, they took responsibility for only the costs that they had to. In general, consumers should not shoulder the burden of corporations' bad business practices.

If true costs were considered, there would be far less materialism (and corresponding pollution).

All that said, sometimes everyone has to contribute to right a wrong. However, it's not ok that everyone pay for one party's past wrongs only to see other parties continuing to repeat those wrongs.

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

#64

Post by blunte » Tue, Jul 02, 2019, 1:35 PM UTC

agumonkey wrote: post #35

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.

Welcome to unregulated capitalism.

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

#65

Post by bluGill » Tue, Jul 02, 2019, 1:43 PM UTC

arcticfox wrote: post #48

adrianN wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This is a changeable situation. Expertise can be obtained. We have plenty of experts in Engineering, physics and chemistry. Everything about mining and processing comes down to those. Experts in the field know exactly what is important to know and and won't try something that seems good but doesn't work out. However there is no reason a few years of investment can't create experts of our own from the basic principals we already have.

Note that we have experts in mining and refining scattered around the country. While the specifics of rare earths are different from iron or gold, many details are close enough for round one, from there is is just improving the processes.

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

#66

Post by bluGill » Tue, Jul 02, 2019, 1:48 PM UTC

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?

I'm a free market capitalist. The response we give is if country A is cheaper we should let them do it and concentrate on what we can do well instead. Even if county A is better in everything, they have limited resources so they are better off buying from us something they could do better just so they can concentrate on what they do well while we get good at something we can do but not as well. In the end the efficiency of scale allowed be working together is better for both of us.

It probably makes sense to ignore the above for things like guns and ammo - in case the other country decides to use this monopoly on military supplies against us in war. This is a worst case though, and is rarely required in the real world.

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

#67

Post by bluGill » Tue, Jul 02, 2019, 1:50 PM UTC

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #62

ljf wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They didn’t really have a choice though. Oh sure, those companies could pay twice as much as their competitors, but they would simply go out of business and not exist anymore. So if they existed before, they can’t exist now. It’s all predicted by the free market: the mines that had higher costs because they followed environmental regulations can’t compete with those that don’t, likewise companies that purchase from m…

No it is not predicted. The free market does not require you to use the cheapest supplier, it requires you to use the best for your situation. Sometimes it is worth paying for quality. If using the cheapest supplier causes your customers who care about the environment to boycott you, then using that cheap supplier isn't a good decision.

So the failure comes back to people not actually caring about the environment in China.

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

#68

Post by wayoutthere » Tue, Jul 02, 2019, 1:57 PM UTC

bluGill wrote: post #51

wayoutthere wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Don't blame the GOP, both parties have been doing it for the last 200 years (the republican party isn't that old, but the Whigs before them as well). They target different areas to stall progress. Sometimes the stalling is good, sometimes is bad - and it is often a matter of opinion which is good or bad.

I mean, sure; the democrats do some of this but the entire GOP strategy over the last 40 years has been to bring the government to a standstill to avoid passing anything.

The GOP strategy succeeds in the case of “passing GOP-sponsored laws” and in the case of “doing absolutely nothing”. The Democrat strategy only succeeds in the “passing Dem-sponsored laws” case — it disheartens the Dem base to see an ineffective government while confirming the pre-held anti-government bias of the GOP base.

Also, I would avoid this argumentation approach related to modern politics in the future; “whataboutism” which is widely recognized as a GOP propaganda technique. The Progressive agenda is not actually about getting even, it’s about fixing a system that has oppressed the middle and working class into a rent-seeking economy with little social mobility. We don’t care that it’s “always been done this way;” the “old guard” of the Democratic Party is only slightly less of a problem than the GOP.

We’re trying to fix the systemic issues in our electoral process, which also includes the Democrat “superdelegate” nomination process designed to weed out populist candidates. Like it or not, we’re in a populist era...

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

#69

Post by adrianN » Tue, Jul 02, 2019, 1:58 PM UTC

arcticfox wrote: post #48

adrianN wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

A few years ago there were no Chinese miners and they managed to get some.

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

#70

Post by lsd5you » Tue, Jul 02, 2019, 1:59 PM UTC

tomp wrote: post #60

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…

I agree with you. Strict environmental and employment standards in US and EU make no sense if companies can just relocate to China and pollute & abuse people there. I'm a strong proponent of "fair" trade (not "free" trade) for this reason - I'm OK with production moving elsewhere because salaries are lower, there's more resources and/or better climate for production, but it's completely unacceptable if it's done to s…

I'd argue that trump is a break from those past dogmas and regulatory capture (to some extent). Certainly he wasn't approved by the media - who are controlled by big business via advertisements.

Trump is rightwing in the same way that the german national socialists were right wing. i.e. Not really economically, or at least big business has to be aligned with the nation. I am not drawing an equivalence - he is to the Nazis what Bernie Sanders is to the Soviets i.e. not comparable in scale at all.