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

71–80 of 92 posts

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

#71

Post by lsd5you »

tim333 wrote: post #49
Al-Khwarizmi wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Which is why precautionary and moderate tariffs are suitable, with some discretion for cases where things are especially egregious and/or where the economics are different (low margin vs luxury goods need different levels of tariff).

Probably ideally tariff levels should not directly made by the executive, but rather some kind of review system - (although quangos are another problem).

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

#72

Post by patrickaljord »

mrspuratic wrote: post #6
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #2

The eternal problem of externalities. They ought to be priced into the cost of the rare earths, but doing so means you lose out to your less scrupulous competitors.

Capitalism 101, get rich by plundering the earth (and leave someone else to clean up the mess). Mining is a truly nasty business, and not just environmentally. No small problem is that of assigning value to a clean environment, or to sustainable practises. ETS anyone?

The USSR was way more polluting than the US.

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

#73

Post by ambicapter »

bluGill wrote: post #66
Al-Khwarizmi wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 efficie…

> This is a worst case though, and is rarely required in the real world.

Is it though? We're currently talking about the national security concerns coming from frickin magnets. We could have the same conversation for soybeans or steel or manure. There are a lot of things that are crucial in a country's functioning.

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

#74

Post by ambicapter »

blunte wrote: post #63

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, p…

Yeah, all these experts happen to be Chinese.

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

#75

Post by dustingetz »

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…

The resolution to the economic prisoner’s dilemma is religion, which evolved to coordinate the globally shared values needed to defeat a backstab/backstab situation. For example “thou shalt not murder” is win/win.

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

#76

Post by simonh »

jacknews wrote: post #58
simonh wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

iPhones have industry leading service lifetimes, often being passed on to other family members and there's a healthy second hand market. More Android phones are sold every year than iPhones and on average they are used for less than half as long[1] (average lifespan of a phone less than 2 years, iPhone economic lifetime 67 months). iPhones also have industry leading ratings in recyclability[2]. That is probably the m…

"iPhones also have industry leading ratings in recyclability[2]" How many are actually recycled though?

OPs criticism was aimed at Apple, but whether they take advantage of the option is really on the owners. Apple is pushing this aspect fairly hard though, because it's another way they can differentiate their product and due to the costs involved it's not something cut rate OEMs can compete on effectively.

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

#77

Post by seanmcdirmid »

bluGill wrote: post #67
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If the rare earths produced from the Chinese mines and refiners were of lesser quality, then you would have a point. If the refining process requires them to poop in their own backyard, then you might not even be aware of that until many years later, let alone have a free market interest in preventing them from doing that.

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

Some people, many people in China do care about the environment, they just have lacked the power to do much about it. But yes, again, short term interests win out when the long term consequences are far away in space or time. And then it’s just a classic prisoners dilemma: you can think long term, but your competitors will just put you out of business short term so it isn’t a workable solution.

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

#78

Post by worklogistics »

PSA: There is a disinformation campaign that pushes the narrative that renewables are big users of rare earth minerals. They are not.

The #1 uses of rare earth is chemical catalysts (used for processing fossil fuels) and pollution control (also fossil fuels)

Top uses of rare-earths in the US

Chemical Catalysts 55% Metallurgy & Alloys 15% Ceramics and Glass Making 10% Glass Polishing 10% Other 10%

Source: http://geology.com/articles/rare-earth-elements/ Batteries, solar panels and magnets are in that 'other' category.

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

#79

Post by tim333 »

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…

There have been a number of attempts at carbon pricing. One example is the UK

>In 2013, the UK became the first EU country to introduce a carbon price floor, now set at £18 a tonne

Some results:

>In 2012, the UK ranked 20th out of a list of 33 rich countries in terms of low-carbon electricity use. In 2017, it jumped to 7th. No other country has ever climbed up the rankings so quickly, according to a study by Imperial College London.

and

>UK power from green energy set to surpass fossil fuels in 2019

so it seems to be working at least somewhat. But:

> the UK measure has come under mounting pressure from troubled steel companies and other heavy power users who claim green levies make electricity more expensive, giving international rivals a competitive advantage.

So overall it seems successful but it's complicated. A lot of other schemes also seem to have complicated effects so it's hard to say yeah it's all good but overall they are probably an improvement on doing nothing.

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

#80

Post by ThomPete »

pjc50 wrote: post #38
ThomPete wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It doesn't make the negatives go away but it could mean it's a net positive which changes what to read into it.
Post reply on HN