Thanks for the thorough comparison and critique, Ian. But I'm confused by your stance. You seem to be implying that we *don't* actually need all these critical metals in order to stave off climate change, that somehow that's a shuck perpetuated by the mining industry. How can we possibly hold off climate change without shifting to EVs and renewable energy—all of which require critical metals?
Hi Vince! Thanks for asking the question; it prompted me to apply some structure to my research. I could make that stance clearer, but at this point my aim is to highlight that the 'need' is not predetermined but socially constructed by a mess of actors and factors. That then opens up other possibilities for reducing emissions, as it tries to make sure the solution doesn’t define the problem. Reducing emissions means ending the burning of fossil fuels, and EVs and renewable energy are proposed solutions to continue certain types of energy use that had started only because of fossil fuels; they’re solutions proposed as if current car use and ballooning energy consumption are possible without fossil fuels. Maybe they are, but my research on mining tries to understand the extraction of natural resources (fossil fuels and hardrock materials) as the consequence of particular social relations. The conclusions from this type of research suggest that emissions don’t just appear on their own, so reducing them becomes a social question, rather than a matter of choosing the best technology. Would high-consuming lifestyles look like they do without imperial violence and systemic barriers to alternative ways of life? I think my aim is to make sure these global narratives of unity toward a common aim actually include everyone, and many people are excluded from the solutions meant to save them. Most of the structures that enable mining were set up long before governments acknowledged fossil fuel’s impact on the climate, so the question I pose in the talk is ‘How is the momentum of an extractive mindset influencing how people design climate solutions?’ Just because we have many materials around already, doesn't mean to me that they're ‘needed’. Even if reducing emissions is the only goal, then it seems rethinking urban design, throwaway consumption, accountability for fossil fuel firms, and Indigenous land rights would all be a lot swifter and safer.
Gotcha. Well, I certainly agree we should redesign cities and discourage consumption in order to reduce emissions and generally make human life more sustainable. But with more than 8 billion people already on the planet I'm afraid we're really stuck with having to produce an awful lot of energy and vehicles and other stuff, just to keep people alive and healthy. Less *per capita* than we currently use in rich countries, sure, but still a whole helluva lot.
Thanks for the thorough comparison and critique, Ian. But I'm confused by your stance. You seem to be implying that we *don't* actually need all these critical metals in order to stave off climate change, that somehow that's a shuck perpetuated by the mining industry. How can we possibly hold off climate change without shifting to EVs and renewable energy—all of which require critical metals?
Hi Vince! Thanks for asking the question; it prompted me to apply some structure to my research. I could make that stance clearer, but at this point my aim is to highlight that the 'need' is not predetermined but socially constructed by a mess of actors and factors. That then opens up other possibilities for reducing emissions, as it tries to make sure the solution doesn’t define the problem. Reducing emissions means ending the burning of fossil fuels, and EVs and renewable energy are proposed solutions to continue certain types of energy use that had started only because of fossil fuels; they’re solutions proposed as if current car use and ballooning energy consumption are possible without fossil fuels. Maybe they are, but my research on mining tries to understand the extraction of natural resources (fossil fuels and hardrock materials) as the consequence of particular social relations. The conclusions from this type of research suggest that emissions don’t just appear on their own, so reducing them becomes a social question, rather than a matter of choosing the best technology. Would high-consuming lifestyles look like they do without imperial violence and systemic barriers to alternative ways of life? I think my aim is to make sure these global narratives of unity toward a common aim actually include everyone, and many people are excluded from the solutions meant to save them. Most of the structures that enable mining were set up long before governments acknowledged fossil fuel’s impact on the climate, so the question I pose in the talk is ‘How is the momentum of an extractive mindset influencing how people design climate solutions?’ Just because we have many materials around already, doesn't mean to me that they're ‘needed’. Even if reducing emissions is the only goal, then it seems rethinking urban design, throwaway consumption, accountability for fossil fuel firms, and Indigenous land rights would all be a lot swifter and safer.
Sounds like we could have a longer conversation about this, so happy to keep chatting! Some additional sources could be Julia Steinberger’s work on the energy requirements for “the good life”, and for batteries specifically, this report: https://www.uts.edu.au/isf/explore-research/projects/fast-and-fair-transition-minimizing-mining-impacts-road-zero-emissions-transport
Gotcha. Well, I certainly agree we should redesign cities and discourage consumption in order to reduce emissions and generally make human life more sustainable. But with more than 8 billion people already on the planet I'm afraid we're really stuck with having to produce an awful lot of energy and vehicles and other stuff, just to keep people alive and healthy. Less *per capita* than we currently use in rich countries, sure, but still a whole helluva lot.