Here's a fact about the renewable energy transition that doesn't get enough attention. In addition to electric versions of tools/vehicles/heaters being vastly more efficient in use (and so needing less energy to do the same work), the mining needed to create the infrastructure is much less than is needed for our current fossil fuel use.
I've seen several people explain this, but this recent Twitter thread by Rebecca Solnit is a good brief summary:
A common response to mention of renewables is a denunciation of mining for battery materials by people who don't seem to notice that fossil fuel is also mined/extracted — on a scale that dwarfs everything else. This pits them against the energy transition.
The attitude that somehow renewables are problematic while ignoring altogether the colonial / environmental / human rights impact of fossil fuels and other fossil fuels impacts such as climate chaos seems like a real transition obstacle.
This is of course in part because (with industry help) the mainstream has normalized the horrific poisonousness and destructiveness of fossil fuels. But I wonder how much industry propaganda has sown this widespread sense that it's renewables that are problematic.
Obviously cobalt and lithium are very different materials in their distribution and human rights implications. Less obvious to the people piping up with objections is that research on better battery materials is speeding along.
Lots of people here are more expert than me on many aspects of this. I'm just dismayed by people who are more interested in denouncing the solutions than understanding them or addressing the problems, because I see that reflexive response constantly. And curious why....
Status quo bias, on top of oil company propaganda, probably explains most of it. We have to tell this story every chance we get.
No comments:
Post a Comment