this post was submitted on 29 Apr 2026
634 points (98.9% liked)

Science Memes

20074 readers
2541 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Mavvik@lemmy.ca 26 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Im a Canadian geologist so I obviously dont have any personal stake in this but I do want to share my thoughts.

I think anti-mining sentiment is understandable in most places but not always justifiable. Lithium mining is absolutely required to transition from fossil fuels. Unless the number of cars on the road is greatly reduced, replacing them with BEVs will require significant amounts of lithium or improvements to Na ion batteries. There is not enough lithium available to get by just on recycling.

The question then becomes: where should this lithium come from? If it is not mined in western countries like USA or Canada, it will be mined by China or developing countries. In this comparison, who has better environmental regulations? Which countries have more human rights abuse?

If we decide that we can mine these deposits in the west, there is still a question about where they are mined. Do we extract lithium from basinal brines? My understanding is that these are generally more environmentally risky than extraction from pegmatites (the deposit type in New England).

The final question becomes, which communities will have to accept this mining? In Canada, most of the time it is indigenous communities that suffer most of the negative impacts of mining. There are many benefits to the communities too (usually), but the indigenous communities do not have nearly as much political sway as say rich cottage owners might, so their preferences and desires often get steamrolled by government in the name of "progress".

The unfortunate reality is that if we want to get rid of fossil fuels, we need to do a lot more mining and extraction or come up with some serious technological and societal innovation. In a globalized economy, saying that you dont want mining near your home means that you want some other people to deal with the potentially negative consequences of it. I am not saying that we need to allow all mining everywhere, but these are important ethical considerations that we have to make when talking about how we want society to progress.

Sorry for the rant.

[–] jaggedrobotpubes@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago (2 children)

This is a beautiful description of why the obvious move here is "fewer cars, way better public transit."

[–] pupbiru@aussie.zone 1 points 1 hour ago

even then we still need far more batteries. we need them for the grid (though alternate chemistries are looking better for that; cars are trickier in many ways), and even with public transit we still need trucks and vehicles for last-mile transport of goods

[–] Mavvik@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 day ago

Hard agree from me. Cars are such an inefficient use of resources its crazy. If I had it my way we would all get around by train, tram, or bike.

[–] absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz 9 points 1 day ago

Sorry for the rant.

Nuanced point is not a rant!