As Chinese companies have increased their overseas mining operations, allegations of problems caused by these projects have steadily risen.

The Business and Human Rights Resource Centre, an NGO, says such troubles are “not unique to Chinese mining” but last year it published a report listing 102 allegations made against Chinese companies involved in extracting critical minerals, ranging from violations of the rights of local communities to damage to ecosystems and unsafe working conditions.

These allegations dated from 2021 and 2022. The BBC has counted more than 40 further allegations that were made in 2023, and reported by NGOs or in the media.

  • TheFriar@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    “Strip mining for the environment!”

    Maybe our tech isn’t so “green” if this is the process.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      The problem is, what’s the alternative? Unless we make some new discovery or give up on modern society, this is how we get off fossil fuels. I hate it, I just don’t see another answer.

      • vividspecter@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        The alternative is moving away from rare earth minerals to more common ones for battery tech, which is starting to happen. A long term transition will likely require more fundamental shifts in society, which will bring a lot of benefits too. But in the short term, fossil fuels need to be abandoned rapidly.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          7 months ago

          Yes, my apologies, I was speaking about this being necessary in the short term due to us not having any other options. Maybe one day there will be viable battery technology that doesn’t require conflict minerals and can be produced at scale, but not for quite some time.

          • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            Maybe one day there will be viable battery technology that doesn’t require conflict minerals and can be produced at scale, but not for quite some time.

            It’s already here.

            "In April 2023, Contemporary Amperex Technology (CATL) announced that Chery Automobile became the first customer for its sodium-ion batteries. CATL unveiled its internally developed sodium-ion batteries in July 2021. While CATL’s first-generation sodium-ion battery had an energy density of 160 watt-hours per kilogram (Wh/kg), the battery maker’s next-generation sodium-ion battery energy density will exceed 200 Wh/kg.

            However, we are now witnessing non-mainland Chinese players entering the fray. Stellantis and Northvolt recently announced their move toward sodium-ion battery technology."

            https://www.spglobal.com/mobility/en/research-analysis/briefcase-sodium-ion-batteries-to-unseat-lithium.html

          • vividspecter@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            No problem, I don’t disagree with your argument at all. And broadly, the “just shutdown society” approach, even it it’s the most effective, I just don’t see how it would work. Unless every government in the world goes full authoritarian, the people just aren’t going to support that level of action. The only way I see it happening, if it happens by necessity (which means things have already hit disaster level).

            So the things that can be rolled out rapidly to quickly transition things with minimal disruption need to happen first, like renewable energy and EVs (I say that as a “fuck cars” type, but I know that winning that argument is going to take longer than the time we have to reduce emissions rapidly). And the argument of reducing consumption, circular economies, and more efficient infrastructure design needs to be made over the coming decades.

      • version_unsorted@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        Well, you answered your own question. We need to give up on “modern society” if our way of living can’t change to ease the exploitation of peoples and the earth, we shouldn’t partake.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          7 months ago

          If we gave up on things like modern agricultural methods and modern medicine, billions of people could die. You included. Is that really what you want?

          • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            I don’t think that’s a very fair argument. Giving up modern society doesn’t implicitly mean giving up modern medicine or agriculture. I think a fairer interpretation would be that modern society is too obsessed with excessive consumption.

            We do need to moderate our consumption, if everyone consumed at the same rate as modern western nations we would all be doomed.

          • version_unsorted@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            I’m ready to start taking steps toward a society that does not exploit people or the earth, if that means our lifespan is impacted, I’ll take that as fallout. Obviously I’d give up more of my own lifestyle as an able bodied person to support others and provide whatever I can for a just society. So yeah, if we can’t do this together, I’d rather not do it at all.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              How many children are you willing to allow to starve to death or die by massive infections by abandoning these things?

              • version_unsorted@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                7 months ago

                People are already dying. Our existing system which is built on exploitation causes countless people to be sacrificed to support the way we live right now. How many people are you willing to sacrifice with poisoned waterways and medical conditions caused by unsafe working conditions, as mentioned in the article?

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  7 months ago

                  That’s not an answer. There are approximately 2 billion children in the world today. How many are you willing to sacrifice to a slow and agonizing death through starvation and disease? Let’s have a percentage.

                • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  7 months ago

                  Those people are still going to die you realize. This isn’t a binary. It will take decades to eliminate those issues. We’re better off spending that time to figure out how to maintain our current quality of life while also solving those problems.

                  Edit: Especially if we maintain modern medicine and agriculture. Those aren’t intrinsically safe and non polluting.

          • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            Lot of people are content to say we should give up modern standards of living without realizing just how crucial those are for people living healthily.

      • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        The same solution that’s been around since 1879… the electric train.

        There is no environmentally friendly way to keep our current mass transit system, which is currently just everyone over the age of 16 having a car.

        The problem is simple, the solution is simple, the only thing that makes it a difficult problem is because we don’t have an economic incentive to shift capital away from private ownership.

  • 3volver@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    7 months ago

    Thankfully electric vehicles are becoming cheaper then ICE vehicles which is a very good sign that we don’t need as many rare earth metals. Unfortunately for renewable technology we still need rare earth metals, and they need to be mined using fossil fuels first. That’s the stage we’re at right now. We still need to get much better at recycling which I believe we will.

    • 3volver@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      Oh and anyone that says electric vehicles are worse for the environment than ICE vehicles are idiots and shills. ICE vehicles also rely on rare earth metals and produce significant air pollution.