Do you support lithium mining at Thacker Pass, NV?

[John Dule]

Thacker Pass, Nevada is home to some of the largest lithium deposits in the US. Lithium is a key ingredient in the production of electric cars. Currently, America's lithium output is dwarfed by China's; Chinese companies control valuable lithium assets in other countries as well. Exploiting Thacker Pass could put us in a much better position when it comes to lithium independence, and the environmental advantages need not be mentioned.

However, there are problems. Lithium mining requires large quantities of water, which is in short supply in Nevada. The mine would also destroy a site that is valued by local Native tribes and hosts endangered wildlife.

Some additional context for those interested:

[GregTheGreat657]

Yes. We need to more self-sufficient, so we can better stand up to China

[If my soul was made of stone]

Throughout all of human history, mining has been among our species' most destructive behaviors. Its environmental impact has been staggering, yet we live in a world so indelibly shaped by its proliferation that it's almost impossible to imagine anything else. Organized, commercial mining has been among the worst means of economic exploitation against man devised by man, in the present in the global south as much as in the days of Blair Mountain and the Wobblies.

I support doing a lot less of it. I also believe that listening to indigenous people is something very vital that is not done enough by this nation's government. If you say something about how that'll have unprecedented global economic impact and require the global north to adapt its gluttonous lifestyle, I'll just post the yes chad and be on my way.

[John Dule]

Throughout all of human history, mining has been among our species' most destructive behaviors. Its environmental impact has been staggering, yet we live in a world so indelibly shaped by its proliferation that it's almost impossible to imagine anything else. Organized, commercial mining has been among the worst means of economic exploitation against man devised by man, in the present in the global south as much as in the days of Blair Mountain and the Wobblies.

I support doing a lot less of it. I also believe that listening to indigenous people is something very vital that is not done enough by this nation's government. If you say something about how that'll have unprecedented global economic impact and require the global north to adapt its gluttonous lifestyle, I'll just post the yes chad and be on my way.

It's an objective fact that the environment would be better off if the lithium were extracted and then put to use in batteries. You can make the indigenous argument if you like, but the environmental one is a losing argument for you.

[If my soul was made of stone]

Throughout all of human history, mining has been among our species' most destructive behaviors. Its environmental impact has been staggering, yet we live in a world so indelibly shaped by its proliferation that it's almost impossible to imagine anything else. Organized, commercial mining has been among the worst means of economic exploitation against man devised by man, in the present in the global south as much as in the days of Blair Mountain and the Wobblies.

I support doing a lot less of it. I also believe that listening to indigenous people is something very vital that is not done enough by this nation's government. If you say something about how that'll have unprecedented global economic impact and require the global north to adapt its gluttonous lifestyle, I'll just post the yes chad and be on my way.

It's an objective fact that the environment would be better off if the lithium were extracted and then put to use in batteries. You can make the indigenous argument if you like, but the environmental one is a losing argument for you.

Every half-wit "environmental policy" is bound to have an environmental impact that vastly outweighs any damage prevention or mitigation that it might have. Carbon capture plants usually consume an amount of electricity that is acquired by burning CO2 in greater amounts than the CO2 they actually take in. The stories about policy wonks feuding over whether or not it's worth it to raze desert ecosystems to build ludicrous amounts of solar panels are common knowledge now, and one of the Discord servers I'm in that hosts folks with Strong Opinions on both sides never shuts up about it. Obviously any human activity at this point in time is bound to have an environmental impact that, if we dedicated ourselves to absorbing it, would leave all non-sociopaths alive in a state of catatonia. but we tend to relieve ourselves of that for the sake of functioning within this spiraling death cult ride to oblivion.

I'm erring on the side that involves doing less and making less noise, also.

[Kamala's side hoe]

Some additional context for those interested:

Wendover Productions is awesome.

Voted No because
1. Local environmental impact- mining process uses a ton of water in a water-scarce area
2. Negative impact on local residents (indigenous peoples, farmers, ranchers)
3. Alternative Lithium source (implied to be commercially viable) in the Salton Sea
4. Viable long-term alternatives to lithium-ion batteries in EVs (solid-state batteries).

Also- there are additional negative societal externalities associated with car dependency (beyond carbon dioxide emissions) that mass EV ownership wouldn't solve. Giving everyone a Tesla to drive to work won't magically solve our traffic, land use, and obesity problems.

That being said I'm generally on the climate hawk side of the climate vs conservation debate within the environmental movement. Utilitarian climate hawks > NIMBY conservationists.

[John Dule]

Throughout all of human history, mining has been among our species' most destructive behaviors. Its environmental impact has been staggering, yet we live in a world so indelibly shaped by its proliferation that it's almost impossible to imagine anything else. Organized, commercial mining has been among the worst means of economic exploitation against man devised by man, in the present in the global south as much as in the days of Blair Mountain and the Wobblies.

I support doing a lot less of it. I also believe that listening to indigenous people is something very vital that is not done enough by this nation's government. If you say something about how that'll have unprecedented global economic impact and require the global north to adapt its gluttonous lifestyle, I'll just post the yes chad and be on my way.

It's an objective fact that the environment would be better off if the lithium were extracted and then put to use in batteries. You can make the indigenous argument if you like, but the environmental one is a losing argument for you.

Every half-wit "environmental policy" is bound to have an environmental impact that vastly outweighs any damage prevention or mitigation that it might have. Carbon capture plants usually consume an amount of electricity that is acquired by burning CO2 in greater amounts than the CO2 they actually take in. The stories about policy wonks feuding over whether or not it's worth it to raze desert ecosystems to build ludicrous amounts of solar panels are common knowledge now, and one of the Discord servers I'm in that hosts folks with Strong Opinions on both sides never shuts up about it. Obviously any human activity at this point in time is bound to have an environmental impact that, if we dedicated ourselves to absorbing it, would leave all non-sociopaths alive in a state of catatonia. but we tend to relieve ourselves of that for the sake of functioning within this spiraling death cult ride to oblivion.

I'm erring on the side that involves doing less and making less noise, also.

This is why I, as an environmentalist, hate the environmentalist left. Modern leftists claim to care about human rights, dignity, and suffering, as well as the environment. To that end, they have made it their goal to make our air and water cleaner-- so far, so good. But to stop fracking fluid from getting into our water and smog from clogging our skies, we need to move away from fossil fuels. What are we going to use instead?

Nuclear power? No way-- the environmental nuttos constantly fearmonger about nuclear power, even though it's the safest and cleanest way of generating large amounts of energy. Hydroelectric dams? Of course not-- that would involve damming our rivers, which they refuse to endorse even if it's to prevent a greater evil. Lithium batteries? Apparently they're no good either-- the mining and extraction will apparently involve removing some sacred boulder, which is of course unconscionable. Solar power? That "razes desert ecosystems"-- areas where life is scarce to begin with.

The solution you clearly want is for us to just stop using so much electricity. This makes sense for someone like Tender, who genuinely wanted to see a mass genocide of humans in order to decrease our carbon output-- but it is ridiculous coming from anyone who claims to care about the quality of human life, as leftists do. What do you think will happen if we let energy become too expensive? Poor people will freeze in the winter and die of heat stroke in the summer. Their food will expire. They will be unable to travel. They won't be able to access the internet. They will live in the dark and the damp-- but at least the Paiute tribes and the river fishies will be happy!

I love the environment, but not to the point that I want to make my fellow man suffer.

[PSOL]

Nevada has too low of a water supply already.

[Aurelius]

I support it. Better to do it here than outsource it to some third world country using slave labor and making no effort whatsoever to remediate environmental impact. Better from an economic and security standpoint as well. When it comes to crucial resources I have little patience for the NIMBYs, BANANAs, and Citizens Against Virtually Everything.

[Dr. MB]

When it comes to crucial resources I have little patience for the CAVE people.

Bro what

[If my soul was made of stone]

When it comes to crucial resources I have little patience for the CAVE people.

–Francisco Pizarro

[Aurelius]

When it comes to crucial resources I have little patience for the CAVE people.

Bro what

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAVE_people

Realized this does have an unfortunate double meaning in this case so I edited my post to make my point more clear.

[Meclazine for Israel]

My ol' boss found a $5Bn lithium mine.

It's great for the economy. It povides the indigenous community with good jobs.

Lithium is not environmentally destructive. You just mine it and ship it. The is no sulphide roasting. Nothing but blending.

Hard rock mining is not that bad for the environment. Farming clears over 150 times the land surface that mining ever will.

Gold, nickel, diamond and lithium mines are actually quite small in size. Mining companies now have well qualified environmental managers who can restore old mining camps near back to original at the end of the resource development cycle.

Lithium mines are A-grade resource development projects for employment and creating economic wealth together with the inherent social benefit.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

When it comes to crucial resources I have little patience for the CAVE people.

Bro what

[snip]

Realized this does have an unfortunate double meaning in this case so I edited my post to make my point more clear.

Post reported for being too wide.

[VPH]

It's bad for the environment, but the demand is there so it's probably best to create jobs in America rather than elsewhere. Needs to be better regulated though.

[Donerail]

It's an objective fact that the environment would be better off if the lithium were extracted and then put to use in batteries. You can make the indigenous argument if you like, but the environmental one is a losing argument for you.

The casual conflation of "the environment," which is a broad concept, with the specific aspect of the global environment you really mean here — levels of carbon emissions — is one of the more grating rhetorical tics among the wonk types and "rationalists" who occasionally wade into this subject area. The suggestion in your later post that you only oppose environmental destruction when doing so would not improve some human's well-being — thus justifying most if perhaps not all extractive activity — is less annoying but more telling.

[John Dule]

It's an objective fact that the environment would be better off if the lithium were extracted and then put to use in batteries. You can make the indigenous argument if you like, but the environmental one is a losing argument for you.

The casual conflation of "the environment," which is a broad concept, with the specific aspect of the global environment you really mean here — levels of carbon emissions — is one of the more grating rhetorical tics among the wonk types and "rationalists" who occasionally wade into this subject area.

Forgive me for placing a higher value on global emissions and temperatures than on the all-important ecosystem of Thacker Pass, Nevada.

The suggestion in your later post that you only oppose environmental destruction when doing so would not improve some human's well-being — thus justifying most if perhaps not all extractive activity — is less annoying but more telling.

I didn't suggest that.

[certified hummus supporter 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

Yes, but there must be some way to do this without endangering the frog and desecrating the Native's holy site.

[Donerail]

It's an objective fact that the environment would be better off if the lithium were extracted and then put to use in batteries. You can make the indigenous argument if you like, but the environmental one is a losing argument for you.

The casual conflation of "the environment," which is a broad concept, with the specific aspect of the global environment you really mean here — levels of carbon emissions — is one of the more grating rhetorical tics among the wonk types and "rationalists" who occasionally wade into this subject area.

Forgive me for placing a higher value on global emissions and temperatures than on the all-important ecosystem of Thacker Pass, Nevada.

That's your prerogative; we are all entitled to our own subjective valuations. We are not, however, entitled to present our subjective valuations as objective facts.

The suggestion in your later post that you only oppose environmental destruction when doing so would not improve some human's well-being — thus justifying most if perhaps not all extractive activity — is less annoying but more telling.

I didn't suggest that.

You may want to re-read your post and consider how identical arguments to the one you present here may be — and has been — applied to argue against literally every environmental measure in this country's history.

The solution you clearly want is for us to just stop using so much steel. This makes sense for someone like Tender, who genuinely wanted to see a mass genocide of humans in order to decrease our industrial footprint-- but it is ridiculous coming from anyone who claims to care about the quality of human life, as leftists do. What do you think will happen if we let steel become too expensive? Poor people will be forced into low-quality slums as construction becomes more expensive. They will face increased costs of everything they buy as railroad construction slows. They will be unable to purchase appliances. They won't be able to buy cars. They will live in the dark and the damp-- but at least the environmentalists and the river fishies in the Cuyahoga will be happy it's no longer on fire!

I love the environment, but not to the point that I want to make my fellow man suffer.

Your expectations of everyone else advancing the environmental argument are that 1. everyone’s top priority should be reducing carbon emissions to the exclusion of other environmental concerns, and 2. the primary justification for this — for everyone — should be framed in terms of human well-being. Neither is justified.

[John Dule]

It's an objective fact that the environment would be better off if the lithium were extracted and then put to use in batteries. You can make the indigenous argument if you like, but the environmental one is a losing argument for you.

The casual conflation of "the environment," which is a broad concept, with the specific aspect of the global environment you really mean here — levels of carbon emissions — is one of the more grating rhetorical tics among the wonk types and "rationalists" who occasionally wade into this subject area.

Forgive me for placing a higher value on global emissions and temperatures than on the all-important ecosystem of Thacker Pass, Nevada.

That's your prerogative; we are all entitled to our own subjective valuations. We are not, however, entitled to present our subjective valuations as objective facts.

It's not my subjective valuation. Emissions affect both the global atmosphere and environmental problems on a local level-- fires, floods, and other natural disasters will be objectively worse without the reduction in emissions that lithium extraction allows for. This affects the entire planet (yes, including rural Nevadans), so there is no honest environmentalist argument against the exploitation of these resources aside from a reflexive antipathy towards any solutions of any kind. I understand the counterintuitive nature of having to destroy a very small portion of nature in order to better preserve the environment as a whole, but that's what a trade-off is: Weighing the pros and cons. And here, the pros objectively outweigh the cons.

You may want to re-read your post and consider how identical arguments to the one you present here may be — and has been — applied to argue against literally every environmental measure in this country's history.

This argument would make sense if refusing to extract lithium was an "environmental measure." Given the facts stated above-- that emissions and pollution will actually be reduced as a result of the extraction-- it clearly isn't.

Your expectations of everyone else advancing the environmental argument are that 1. everyone’s top priority should be reducing carbon emissions to the exclusion of other environmental concerns, and 2. the primary justification for this — for everyone — should be framed in terms of human well-being. Neither is justified.

I framed the argument in terms of human well-being because the dignity of the poor and their health and welfare are things that the far left claim to care about. If you subscribe to the Tender worldview, then of course this argument doesn't apply to you. I hope I don't need to explain why that perspective is fundamentally flawed, though.

[Donerail]

That's your prerogative; we are all entitled to our own subjective valuations. We are not, however, entitled to present our subjective valuations as objective facts.

It's not my subjective valuation. Emissions affect both the global atmosphere and environmental problems on a local level-- fires, floods, and other natural disasters will be objectively worse without the reduction in emissions that lithium extraction allows for. This affects the entire planet (yes, including rural Nevadans), so there is no honest environmentalist argument against the exploitation of these resources aside from a reflexive antipathy towards any solutions of any kind. I understand the counterintuitive nature of having to destroy a very small portion of nature in order to better preserve the environment as a whole, but that's what a trade-off is: Weighing the pros and cons. And here, the pros objectively outweigh the cons.

How important is this site to global carbon emissions, compared to other sources of this material? Can you quantify the emissions reductions that will be caused by mining lithium in Thacker Pass relative to mining lithium somewhere else?

Please provide your answer in Gt CO2, and show your work. I assume this will be a trivially easy calculation — since, after all, you have objectively weighed the costs and benefits here — but I would still like to see how you do the math.

[Big Abraham]

It's worth mentioning that the emissions argument doesn't really hold up considering that it will require 95 million gallons/year in diesel fuel to run the lithium mine, producing a projected carbon output of 152k tons/year. So even if you're willing to brush over the nearly 5 million gallons/day in water supply needed, the fact that its disruptive to the habitat of many endangered species, and pollutive issues related to arsenic and sulfuric acid all in the name of "reducing emissions," it may be worth reflecting on the fact that it actually does the complete opposite.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Mine baby mine

[John Dule]

That's your prerogative; we are all entitled to our own subjective valuations. We are not, however, entitled to present our subjective valuations as objective facts.

It's not my subjective valuation. Emissions affect both the global atmosphere and environmental problems on a local level-- fires, floods, and other natural disasters will be objectively worse without the reduction in emissions that lithium extraction allows for. This affects the entire planet (yes, including rural Nevadans), so there is no honest environmentalist argument against the exploitation of these resources aside from a reflexive antipathy towards any solutions of any kind. I understand the counterintuitive nature of having to destroy a very small portion of nature in order to better preserve the environment as a whole, but that's what a trade-off is: Weighing the pros and cons. And here, the pros objectively outweigh the cons.

How important is this site to global carbon emissions, compared to other sources of this material? Can you quantify the emissions reductions that will be caused by mining lithium in Thacker Pass relative to mining lithium somewhere else?

Please provide your answer in Gt CO2, and show your work. I assume this will be a trivially easy calculation — since, after all, you have objectively weighed the costs and benefits here — but I would still like to see how you do the math.

Are you suggesting that you'd be more amenable to mining lithium in other places? Why would any other site be significantly better in your eyes, since the lithium extraction process would be the same?

BA brings up the water problem, but it's high time we started pumping large volumes of water from the east to the west anyway. This would just be another key stop on an intercontinental pipeline that should've been built years ago. There's also the advantage that this would be happening in the Great Basin, where the pollutants would not be able to escape into ocean ecosystems or major rivers.

[Donerail]

That's your prerogative; we are all entitled to our own subjective valuations. We are not, however, entitled to present our subjective valuations as objective facts.

It's not my subjective valuation. Emissions affect both the global atmosphere and environmental problems on a local level-- fires, floods, and other natural disasters will be objectively worse without the reduction in emissions that lithium extraction allows for. This affects the entire planet (yes, including rural Nevadans), so there is no honest environmentalist argument against the exploitation of these resources aside from a reflexive antipathy towards any solutions of any kind. I understand the counterintuitive nature of having to destroy a very small portion of nature in order to better preserve the environment as a whole, but that's what a trade-off is: Weighing the pros and cons. And here, the pros objectively outweigh the cons.

How important is this site to global carbon emissions, compared to other sources of this material? Can you quantify the emissions reductions that will be caused by mining lithium in Thacker Pass relative to mining lithium somewhere else?

Please provide your answer in Gt CO2, and show your work. I assume this will be a trivially easy calculation — since, after all, you have objectively weighed the costs and benefits here — but I would still like to see how you do the math.

Are you suggesting that you'd be more amenable to mining lithium in other places? Why would any other site be significantly better in your eyes, since the lithium extraction process would be the same?

You're dodging the question. How much will mining lithium in Thacker Pass reduce global carbon emissions?