This week saw renewed protests from Extinction Rebellion. I went down to the bridge in Leeds and spoke to some of the people taking part. I'm having their messages transcribed so the full text will appear here shortly. Meanwhile, why not listen to the podcast?
Friday, July 19, 2019
News from the Bridge
This week saw renewed protests from Extinction Rebellion. I went down to the bridge in Leeds and spoke to some of the people taking part. I'm having their messages transcribed so the full text will appear here shortly. Meanwhile, why not listen to the podcast?
Friday, July 12, 2019
It's Getting Serious
It’s Getting Serious
More than 2,500 years ago, Pericles reminded his fellow Athenians: “We may not be able to predict the future, but we can prepare for it”.
Extremes
It looks like we should be preparing for more extreme weather like the extremes we’ve seen across the world in the last few days. Does the future lie in trees or in peat bogs, or in the US, where President Donald Trump claims his country leads the world on environmental issues? Greta Thunberg has had her biggest compliment yet while legal action over the climate crisis takes place in some 28 countries and the wind seems to be changing for the British Conservative Party. Despite all this there’s reason to hope. Go to climateoptimist.org and find out why. If you want to follow up on any of the stories you can find where I’ve got them from by going to the blog at www.sustainablefutures.report.
Sustainable Futures Report Forum
Yes, I'm Anthony Day with the Sustainable Futures Report for Friday, 12 July. This week saw the first online discussion with three patrons of the Sustainable Futures Report. We covered a range of topics with a range of opinions. I recorded the session and the participants have agreed that I can share this with you in a future episode. That will come up in the next few weeks. You can find out about being a patron at patreon.com/sfr.
CO2
This time I'm going to start with CO2 and with a new article in Nature entitled “Committed emissions from existing energy infrastructure jeopardise 1.5°C climate target”
Mark Lynas wrote a book called 6 Degrees which explained how the planet would change if the earth warmed by two degrees, or by three degrees and by each degree, up to six degrees. He’s recently been commenting on this report in Nature which analyses our progress towards using up our global carbon budget. The theory is that we can only put so much more greenhouse gas into the atmosphere before we reach the point at which climate change will be out of control and completely irrecoverable, as temperature rises beyond the safe 1.5°C to catastrophic levels.
Budget Deficit
In this Nature article the authors calculate that existing and planned fossil-fuel-powered plants, mainly electricity generating stations, will emit some 850 Gt CO2 over their planned lives. This amount is in excess of the maximum we can emit if we are to keep the temperature increase within the 1.5°C limit. Of existing emissions, China, the USA and the EU28 countries represent approximately 41 per cent, 9 per cent and 7 per cent of the total, respectively. The authors suggest that little or no additional CO2-emitting infrastructure can be commissioned, and that infrastructure retirements that are earlier than historical ones may be necessary, in order to meet the Paris Agreement climate goals. This seems optimistic given that it is generally accepted that even if fully achieved the Paris targets will still allow warming in excess of 3°C. They suggest that existing plants could be retrofitted with carbon capture and storage technology. It’s a very popular solution, but still to be successfully implemented on a commercial scale. There may be other ways of mitigating emissions, but before we get to that let’s look at the current consequences of climate change.
Disasters
In a recent interview with the Guardian’s Fiona Harvey, Mami Mizutori, the U.N. secretary-general’s special representative on disaster risk reduction, spoke of one climate crisis disaster happening every week. She said these smaller-scale events—including intense heatwaves, storms and flooding—were often overshadowed by catastrophic disasters like India’s water shortage and the pair of cyclones that devastated Mozambique earlier this year.
She emphasised that small-scale climate crises are happening much faster and more frequently than previously predicted. It’s essential, therefore, for governments to stop viewing climate change as a long-term issue and instead start investing in “adaptation and resilience” measures designed to curb the effects of ongoing lower-impact events.
“This is not about the future, this is about today.”
Washington Awash
Examples of small-scale crises, undoubtedly traumatic for those affected, include dangerous flash floods which hit Washington DC area this month. The subway was threatened with flooding, motorists had to climb on top of their cars and wait for rescue while emergency services warned commuters to stay off the roads. At the same time heavy rains in Japan caused flooding and landslides and at least two fatalities.
Hot Hail
In Guadalajara, north of Mexico City, a summer hailstorm left ice piled two metres deep. Hail is not unknown in the city in summer but a storm like this had never been seen before. Fortunately the storm seems to have happened overnight, so no casualties were reported. However, nearly 200 homes and businesses reported hail damage, and at least 50 vehicles were swept away by the deluge of ice in hilly areas.
Baked Alsaka
Meanwhile Anchorage in Alaska, north of the Arctic Circle, has been enjoying a heatwave. Temperatures reached 32℃ (90°F) which is a lot hotter than almost anywhere in England this summer.
Of course you can’t point to any of these events and say it proves climate change is happening. You can say that if climate change is real these are exactly the sort of events that we would expect to see.
What’s to be done?
Do we ban all those planned power stations and close down most of the rest? How do we explain it to the billions of people whose daily lives would be impossible without electricity?
Trees
Tree planting 'has mind-blowing potential' to tackle climate crisis according to the authors of a paper in the journal Science. Taking a global perspective, they conclude that ecosystems could support an additional 0.9 billion hectares of continuous forest. This would represent a greater than 25% increase in forested area, including more than 500 billion trees and more than 200 gigatonnes of additional carbon at maturity. Such a change has the potential to cut the atmospheric carbon pool by about 25%.
“This highlights global tree restoration as our most effective climate change solution to date,” they say. “However, climate change will alter this potential tree coverage. We estimate that if we cannot deviate from the current trajectory, the global potential canopy cover may shrink by ~223 million hectares by 2050, with the vast majority of losses occurring in the tropics. Our results highlight the opportunity of climate change mitigation through global tree restoration but also the urgent need for action.”
Bonn Challenge
The Bonn Challenge is an example of others thinking the same way. The Bonn Challenge is a global effort to bring 150 million hectares of the world’s deforested and degraded land into restoration by 2020, and 350 million hectares by 2030. It was launched in 2011 by the Government of Germany and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), and later endorsed and extended by the New York Declaration on Forests at the 2014 UN Climate Summit.
TreeSisters
Another organisation is TreeSisters. They say, “TreeSisters exists to elicit collective responsibility for planetary restoration at the grass roots level with a focus on women and tropical reforestation. We are growing a global network of women who donate monthly to fund the acceleration of tropical reforestation as an expression of collective planetary care.”
“Our Vision
“We envision a world in which it is normal for everyone to protect and restore our planet.”
I think we might all agree with that.
The Flow Country
There could be something even better than forests for trapping carbon. In the north-east of Scotland is the Flow Country. “The Flow Country” is an area of deep peat, dotted with bog pools, that forms the heart of the Caithness and Sutherland peatlands. Covering about 200,000 hectares, it’s more than twice the size of Orkney. Altogether, this corner of Scotland holds more than 400,000 hectares of blanket bog, making it the largest expanse of this remarkable, wild habitat in Europe.
All green plants absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and use the carbon to build the plant’s structure. When the plants die, the carbon is released back into the atmosphere – unless the plant material is preserved in some way.
For the love of peat!
That’s why peat bogs are so important as a defence against climate change. Because the moss and other plants don’t decay, bogs act as a carbon store or “carbon sink”. It is a slow process: forests can store carbon more quickly than peatland, but most of it is released when the trees rot away or are burnt as fuel. Many peatlands have been growing undisturbed for thousands of years, so although they cover just 3% of the world’s land area, they hold nearly 30% of all the carbon stored on land. The Flow Country’s peat bogs alone store about 400 million tonnes – more than double the amount in all of Britain’s woodlands.
But if the bog dries out, the carbon will be released as carbon dioxide, adding to the effects of climate change. It’s been estimated that the carbon stored in Scotland’s peatlands represents 100 years’ worth of the country’s emissions from burning fossil fuels: it would be disastrous if it was released.
Clearly we need our forests and we need our peat bogs as well. We need to preserve them and to expand them when and where we can.
Cognitive Dissonance
In Ireland there are three peat-burning power stations. Somebody should tell them.
No1 in the World
This week President Donald Trump made a major statement on the environment, claiming that the US continued to be an environmental leader, and was criticised for being economical with the truth.
Water
For example he said, “And today, the United States is ranked — listen to this — number one in the world for access to clean drinking water — ranked number one in the world.” And later he said, “… for the first time in nearly 30 years, we’re in the process of strengthening national drinking water standards to protect vulnerable children from lead and copper exposure — something that has not been done, and we’re doing it.”
NBC News Factcheck responded, “the rule has been revised previously and the major overhaul Trump is referring to has been in the works at the EPA for more than a decade. And his speech, in which he touted his commitment to clean drinking water, omitted his administration’s efforts to relax water safety regulations elsewhere.”
Carbon Reduction
Trump also claimed, “Since 2000, our nation’s energy-related carbon emissions have declined more than any other country on Earth. Think of that. Emissions are projected to drop in 2019 and 2020.”
I've not been able to find a complete series, but I found figures which show that US emissions did indeed decline from 2000 to 2014. Given that the country’s emissions per capita were greater than those for almost any other country it is not surprising that the reduction has been significant in absolute terms. It has not been so significant in percentage terms, and still remains one of the highest in the world. The Washington Post reported that emissions actually rose by 3.4% in 2018.
Closer to home…
You don't actually have to go far from home to find governments under fire for inaction on climate change. While the British government recently announced its intentions to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050 the Committee on Climate Change issued a report this week warning that the UK Government must show it is serious about its legal obligations to tackle and prepare for climate change. “UK action to curb greenhouse gas emissions is lagging far behind what is needed, even to meet previous, less stringent, emissions targets,” it said. “Over the past year, the Government has delivered just 1 of 25 critical policies needed to get emissions reductions back on track.”
There’s a link to the report on the blog.
Dad’s Army
The committee chairman even went so far as to say that ministers were acting like the hapless characters from Dad's Army. (For our overseas listeners that’s a long-running TV comedy about elderly part-time soldiers defending the home front during the last war.)
In response, the chair of the Environment Agency said,
“We welcome the Committee’s recognition that our draft strategy is taking the necessary and ambitious steps needed to be a climate resilient nation. We will be working with government and our partners to finalise the strategy later this year and will be taking the Committee’s advice into account.”
Well, as long as they do.
And in other news…
Compliments to the Protestors
This week Mohammed Barkindo, the secretary general of Opec, said he believed that the campaigns by groups like the school strikers and Extinction Rebellion could be the “greatest threat” to the fossil fuel industry.
Greta Thunberg welcomed his remarks as their 'Biggest compliment yet’. There’s no doubt that governments and corporations are taking notice. The next challenge is to spur them into action.
Maybe legal action is the spur.
A new report from the Grantham Research Institute at the London School of Economics finds that in the last 12 months climate change cases have been brought in at least 28 countries around the world, and of the recorded cases more than three quarters have been filed in the United States. While most defendants are governments, lawsuits are increasingly targeting the highest greenhouse-gas-emitting companies. Climate change-related claims are also being pursued by investors, activist shareholders, cities and states. Human rights are increasingly the foundation for these legal actions, but science, demonstrating causality, is increasingly accepted by judges.
The authors warn that as yet there is insufficient evidence of the impacts of climate change litigation, but they believe it could encourage private companies and investors to give greater consideration to climate risk.
Energy
In energy news, there continue to be problems at Flamanville, site of EdF’s new nuclear power station. You’ll remember that it’s a new design, the same as the plant that they are building at Hinkley C in the UK. At Flamanville the plant is already years behind schedule and billions over budget. There have been recurring questions over the integrity of the containment vessel and the security of some of the welds. Now an independent audit has been ordered into the entire European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) project and commissioning of the plant has been deferred once again.
An article in The Economic Times of India expresses concern about the Jaitapur nuclear power plant, planned to use six reactors of the type under construction at Flamanville when contracts were signed in 2008. Like Flamanville, like Hinkley C, like a similar project in Finland, this station is way behind schedule. Why, they ask, was this untested design ever approved? Currently, an Indian designed reactor costs about 2 million euros per MW, translating into Euro 3.3 billion for 1650 MW set. Flamanville has already breached Euro 11 billion for the same capacity and Jaitapur is planned to have six of these units. There is strong environmental opposition to the project as well, but it is surely cost which will put an end to nuclear power throughout the world. Not just the escalating cost of construction, but the enormous cost of decommissioning. This has either got to be recovered in the electricity price or borne by taxpayers for decades to come.
And there’s more…
A couple more stories to close. The Guardian reports that toilet paper is becoming less sustainable. With the increasing use of quilted tissue the manufacturers are using less recycled paper and more virgin woodpulp in their products. Apparently in the UK we use 127 rolls per head per annum, which is significantly more than most other European nations. While a lot of rolls have got the FSC certificate on the packaging, if you look closely it usually says “mixed sources”. Have a look next time you buy.
Stella McCartney suggests that we shouldn’t be washing our clothes - at least not as often. She says that dirt should be allowed to dry and then brushed off. Lingerie should be hand-washed or put in a lingerie bag if you must put it in the machine. Why not wash? Because washing, especially machine washing, damages garments, wears them and misshapes them. And most important of all, washing acrylics and other man-made fabrics releases millions of microfibres which go down the drain, pass through the filters at treatment plants and end up in the oceans. Prof Andrew Groves, head of the fashion design course at the University of Westminster, tells BBC News that the friction in washing machines is what gets rid of the stains, but is also what distorts a garment's shape and colour. And Chip Bergh, the CEO of Levi’s, tells us that he’s never washed one of his pairs of jeans in the 10 years he’s owned them.
And Finally…
Next week Extinction Rebellion starts another round of demonstrations across the United Kingdom. They aim to bring their message to the authorities by deliberate acts of civil disobedience. In the UK we can do this in the knowledge that we will not be sprayed with teargas, baton-charged or driven back by police horses. Compare this with the situation in other countries and in particular look at the forbiddenstories.org website. This describes how journalists investigating corruption and violation of environmental laws by international organisations face harassment, violence and murder.
The stakes are high on both sides of the climate crisis. Let's make our numbers overwhelm the denialism of vested interests.
And on that sobering thought, that's it for another week. I'm Anthony Day. Thank you for listening to the Sustainable Futures Report.
As I told you at the start, this week we held the first Sustainable Futures Report online forum. Three patrons joined me to discuss whether public opinion was reaching a tipping point and wide range of connected issues. I plan to publish the recording as an episode shortly. If you would like to take part in a future debates have a look at patreon.com/sfr where you’ll find all the details.
And that is it for this week.
I'm Anthony Day.
That was the Sustainable Futures Report.
Sources
CO2
Weather
One climate crisis disaster happening every week, UN warns
Snow in Mexico
Trees
Peat
Trump
Trump to claim US is environmental leader in spite of ripping up protections
'Biggest compliment yet': Greta Thunberg welcomes oil chief's 'greatest threat' label
Tech firms to check suppliers after mining revelations in Tanzania
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/18/tech-firms-check-suppliers-mining-revelations-tanzania
End onshore windfarm ban, Tories urge
Friday, July 05, 2019
Rare Earths
Rare Earths
It’s Friday. It’s 5th July. I’m Anthony Day and yes it’s another Sustainable Futures Report. Welcome to you all - welcome to an increasing number of listeners all over the world.
This time I’m following up on rare earths - a topic I touched on a few episodes ago. Last month I attended a lecture on this as part of the York Festival of Ideas. I'll start by summarising what I learnt, but I subsequently had the opportunity to meet the presenter, Dr Alice Courvoisier, and the rest of this episode is a recording of our conversation. There is a full transcription of the interview on the blog. Thanks to my patrons whose support makes this possible. You'll find the blog at www.sustainablefutures.report as always. You can find out about being a patron at patreon.com/sfr.
Rare Earths appear as Rare Earth Metals or Rare Elements and there are about 60 which are used in medical and defence industries as well as the whole range of electronics. While these minerals are relatively abundant they are not necessarily easy to extract. The CRM Alliance recognises 27 of them as critical raw materials and the British Geological Survey manages the SOS Minerals and SOS Rare projects.
An example is neodymium which makes powerful permanent magnets, typically used in wind turbines and electric vehicles. A 2 g magnet can lift 2 kg. Neodymium corrodes rapidly and is not generally recycled.
Significant quantities of hazardous waste are associated with the extraction of rare earths and 90% of the world’s production comes from China which is more relaxed than other nations about environmental controls. Indeed, fear of liability for pollution led to the suspension of rare earth extraction in the United States for some years. Mines have now been reopened including the Mountain Pass rare earths mine and the Red Dog Mine in Alaska. This latter site emits some 350 kg of toxins annually and is surrounded by tailing ponds which will need to be maintained in perpetuity. Materials removed in the course of mining and dumped in spoil heaps are open to the weather which may break them down and release other forms of pollution. The town of Kotzebue, 80 miles south of the Red Dog Mine which produces zinc and lead, is the most polluted community in the United States.
Lithium is well known as a component of batteries. Much of this material is extracted from brine on Bolivian salt flats. The process damages the health of the workers, pollutes the water and destabilises the water table.
Tin, tantalum, tungsten and gold may in some cases be easier to extract, but these are the so-called conflict minerals where warlords, particularly in the Democratic Republic of Congo, fight over their supply. The big users, Apple, Samsung, Google, Nokia, Huawei, Sony and the rest all claim to avoid conflict minerals but once they have travelled down the supply chain, been mixed with minerals from other places and processed into components it’s near-impossible to know where the original materials came from.
Anyway, as I said, I caught up with Alice Courvoisier in a coffee shop a few days after her lecture and asked her to tell me more. Dr Alice Courvoisier teaches Mathematics in the Department of Electronic Engineering at the University of York. Working with future engineers has sparked her interest for ethical and societal aspects of science and technology. She is a member of the Science and Technology Studies Unit (SATSU) and blogs at: ethicsinstem.blogspot.com.
We ended up with a very wide-ranging conversation.
Interview
Anthony: Well, Alice you work in the department of Electronic Engineering, so why are rare-earth metals of concern to you?
Alice: Because they're used in a lot of high technologies really, and especially in what we label as green technologies and anything that has to do with ICT, where there's a lot of electronics involved. So we've learned to use all those fancy materials that 30 years ago we didn't have any use for.
Anthony: I see. You mentioned there were about 60 of them, although you didn't actually cover all of them in the lecture that we went to.
Alice: No. So, the terminology is quite complicated. Rare earths, there's I think 17 of them. There’s the lanthanide series plus -- scandium and yttrium, I think, the ones that are just above them in the periodic table. These are what we call rare earth elements.
Now, rare metals is another type of classifications and it depends where you look. So it's something quite different. But what I mentioned is that we use a lot more of the elements of the periodic table than we used 50 years ago, really.
Anthony: Yes. I think the major points that you made were, first of all, they're rare, that's why they're called rare. When you find them they're very difficult to extract because they're not found in their pure form, they're found in compounds, aren't they?
Alice: Yes.
Anthony: And I think all the materials that you spoke about are recycled less than 1%?
Alice: That's right. So there's a few things. So, rare earths are actually not that rare in terms of abundance on the Earth's crust. But they're a lot more difficult to extract because, as you said, they're in composite materials and also, because they've got very similar chemical properties, they're very interchangeable. So even if you manage to separate the rare earth from the compounds, you need to separate them from each other, which involves a lot more -- I mean I don't know exactly what kind of procedures they use to do this -- but it's a lot more energy and material consuming to do that.
But for example, in terms of abundance, the elements that are the least abundant are like the platinoids, like platinum and those metals. But Neodymium, which is the one that's used to make very powerful magnets, as far as I remember it's as abundant as copper, for example in the earth's crust. But it might not be amenable that easily to extraction.
Anthony: Right. Okay.
Alice: So that's one of the differences. And the recycling, yes, recycling is very poor, but mainly because we use materials and metals in forms that are so much more mixed up and alloys, that it takes a lot of energy to actually break that up. I mean you think about copper wire, just remove the plastic, you're back to the copper. You think of an electronic printed circuit board, it's a lot more complicated.
Anthony: Yes. But, there's a risk I suppose that if you actually take an electronic circuit board and you process it to extract the gold for example, you may destroy some of the other....
Alice: That's right. So I don't know what else they're able to, you know, in the modern recycling processes, how they're able to extract of all the stuff or if they're just focused on one element and move from there. That I've no idea what the state of the art is.
Anthony: You mentioned the Fairphone and that is a modular mobile phone. You said that it was originally designed in order that people could avoid using conflict minerals, because some of these materials that we talked about come effectively from war zones, although the supply chain tends to blur exactly where they came from.
So the Fairphone has that objective, but the Fairphone is also modular so that individual parts of it can be replaced to extend the life. But do you know whether they've designed it to the extent that they can actually get individual materials out?
Alice: No, it's too complicated. Yeah, no, this is quite, I mean, I wouldn't know how they would manage to do something like that.
Anthony: So this is the difficulty. Because we are buying billions of electronic devices every year. And you could argue that it's fashion to some extent?
Alice: Yes, a lot.
Anthony: Yeah. So what do we do? What do we do? You said that the production of these materials is doubling every 15 years, I think, is that right?
Alice: Yes, well at the minute because consumption is increasing exponentially, also because of the need in emerging countries, where sometimes they actually don't have the infrastructure for landlines, so mobile phones have kind of leap-frogged the need for landlines. But also, it's not just a fashion thing, it's the pressure of the companies that are upgrading the software so the hardware needs to be upgraded, and all these kinds of things.
I mean, a friend of mine had a computer and the printer and when she upgraded the software on the computer, which needed to go to the next supported version, it couldn't talk to the printer anymore. So those kinds of things that were not helped by companies really.
Anthony: Yeah, yeah. But I just wonder how realistic that is as a problem, because I mean I've got computers, I've got phones, my newest item is four years old. The others are six, possibly eight years old. And there are constant software updates and they all continue to work and talk to printers.
Alice: Maybe it's not an Apple.
Anthony: Mine's an Apple.
Alice: Oh.
Anthony: Oh yes, all my things are Apple, yes, yes. But I fear it's planned obsolescence. You know that phrase, yes? Yes.
Alice: Yes, yes. But the reason... I haven't quite looked at that in much detail yet, but in the European law, they're trying to put the right to repair, so that the objects are made so that they can be opened and things can be replaced. And they're trying to put that into the legislation.
Anthony: Of course there's a big cloud on the horizon because a large amount of this material comes from China...
Alice: This is true.
Anthony: -- and there is a trade war brewing, and that could presumably be a very, very significant bargaining chip.
Alice: Yes.
Anthony: I think you mentioned also that they're beginning to mine these materials in the States again?
Alice: That's right, yeah. I mean especially, I mean it's because...
From a book written by a French journalist that I've read, there was a mine in California that was mining rare earth elements called the Mountain Pass Mine. But they had environmental problems and so they had to shut down their operations, I think in the late '90s, as far as I remember. And then same thing with a French company, everything was put to China because the Chinese had the cheap labor and they didn't mind the pollution at the time. So then China ended up with 95% of the monopoly on rare earth element production.
So after that, other countries realised, oops, this is not brilliant, because they're used in all of our electronics and obviously defence stuff as well, for those people that care about high tech weapons. So they want to secure their supply chains. So they ended up reopening the mines, whether they've changed their production methods so that it's more environmentally friendly, I have no idea. But mining and environment doesn't go well together.
Anthony: Well, indeed. You spoke about the Red Dog Mine. You also talked about Kotzebue, the town Kotzebue?
Alice: That's right.
Anthony: Eighty kilometres from the mine and yet the worst polluted city in the United States.
Alice: Yeah. Last summer I was working in Wales, in the path near the Rheidol Valley and there was a sign about how they were managing the pollution still from the lead mine that had been closed I don't know how many years before. So these things just stay.
You know, that's something I've understood preparing this, is we think of the rocks we blow up just as a pile of rock, but it's not a pile of rock anymore, it's not the same thing. It's waste in the sense that it's been blown to pieces, so there's a lot more surface area of the rug that's exposed and can react with the air, etc. So it can release elements such thorium, for example, in the case of rare earth mining, that is radioactive, leeches into the elements, when it was safely stored within the rock that we blew up.
Anthony: So you're starting when they do these excavations and they create these spoil heaps, it reacts with the atmosphere and the weather and presumably can pollute the water table and all sorts of things.
Alice: Exactly.
Anthony: It's things we just do not think about it. We just do not know about. But we are locked in aren't we? We're locked into an electronic age. And even if we say, right, well we're going to keep our phones and our computers longer, we can't, I don't think, turn around and say we're going to do without them, can we?
Alice: Well, I don't know, but at some point we might not have a choice.
Anthony: Why? Because...
Alice: Because we run out of material, because we run out of energy, because...
Anthony: Right. Is it likely that we will run out of some of these materials?
Alice: Well, Indium, which is not a rare earth element, but it's labeled as a rare metal, I've seen various estimates which can go down to 30 years. So in matters of decades and Indium is what allows your touchscreen to work.
Anthony: Okay, okay. But cannot be recycled?
Alice: Well, it could be recycled. But again, the process is under development and not on an industrial scale that I knew of at the minute.
Anthony: Yes. Do you know of anybody who is researching recycling of these materials?
Alice: Well, there are a lot more now. I don't know about in this country and in Europe, but in the States, they do a lot of researching and some people managed to find a process that recycles rare earths from hard drives, shattered hard drives. And in Japan they do a lot of research because they don't have the resources.
Anthony: Yes, yes. And this is academic research or commercial research?
Alice: Yeah, academic. Well, there's probably some commercial research as well because people are aware of those issues.
Anthony: Yes, yes.
Alice: So it's a difficult problem, but I mean we need to get out of this ridiculous growth and consumer society thing, which just leads us absolutely nowhere. And something that I didn't mention, but somehow flat screens everywhere, we could do without them without harming our lifestyles really.
Anthony: You mean flatscreens in the street and all sorts of things?
Alice: Yeah, exactly. And in cafes. So I was in the cafe at the university where they have the flatscreen with the news, and they were talking about 5G coming up in London. So we were all of us presented as consumers who would be so much more happy if we can download textbooks in like seconds rather than minutes. Whereas to be honest, most of us wouldn't care. All we want is clean air and clean water. That's not part of the equation. They're happier selling us circuits, rather than the important stuff.
Anthony: Yes, yes, yes, yes. I think you also mentioned that you're a bit skeptical of electric cars because we would just end up with electrified traffic jams, instead of petrol powered ones.
Alice: Yeah, exactly. I mean that's one aspect. But that's the aspect that we can't imagine a life without cars. And people who have cars and have been relying on cars for forever, they just can't imagine. If you see the adverts with cars, if it's not with a woman, it's with the nice landscape that you're going to escape to. It's not the reality, but it's so tied in our minds with that kind of aspect of freedom to go wherever we want, whenever we want, that if you remove the car then you feel like you remove the freedom. So psychologically we're kind of locked into this, and obviously then physically there's all the infrastructure, all the habits and the way we work. But I'm not saying electric cars won't have a role to play, I'm just saying that replacing all the cars we have by electric cars is just an impossibility.
Anthony: Yes. So what shall we do? What should we do and what's your solution?
Alice: Sobriety, that has to come first before we...
Anthony: Expand on that a bit? Sobriety?
Alice: Well, use less, consume less. Because there's a lot of stuff we use and we do that we don't really need. I mean, do we need wind power to power advertising screens? Do we need to have those mini Christmas lights at night, do the shops need to have their lights on at night?
Anthony: I mean if you read the press reports, Mrs May has said that we must aim for zero carbon by 2050 and far as I understand it, the way to it is economic growth. I have to read that in more detail to see if that's exactly what she said. But is that the way or not?
Alice: I'm not an economist, but no, I honestly don't think it's the way. I think we need to simplify our lifestyles. When they're talking about economic growth, I think my understanding of it, which might be wrong, but that's my understanding, is that they need to generate surplus so that the money generated can be reinvested into the green strand of things. But you look at the industrial strategy, "green" means electric cars, automated transport, which again, we should all be replanting gardens. That's what we should be doing.
Anthony: You think the current green philosophy is doing exactly what we're doing at the moment, but just doing it in a different way.
Alice: Yeah. I mean just simplifying the way we live, consuming less, using less and holding those companies to account that are destroying the planet. Because, I mean we're responsible in the sense that we are here now able to do something, but you know, we're all locked into this ridiculous system that is just destroying the planet, there's no other way to put it.
Anthony: How realistic do you think it is to change the attitude of people who for the last generations have been brought up to believe that consumerism is the way forward, that standards of living must always rise, and which generally means more things to be bought and all that sort of thing. How are we actually going to be able to create the social change to create the changes that you feel we need?
Alice: I don't know, is the answer.
Anthony: I think that's my reaction as well. I don't know either.
Alice: The first thing is we need to tell the truth. You know, I think that Extinction Rebellion have a point with that, it's telling the truth. And it's not just about climate change, it's about telling the whole truth, telling how our culture has basically completely raped the world and meet everyone believe that this was the only way forward to something called "progress" in big inverted commas. And I think we have realised that that's it. We're done. It's the end of our civilisation, it cannot carry on. We can't refer to some kind of technological mythology that in the future we'll be able to do this.
And I think we need to sober up on that aspect as well, not just supply chain or lifestyle, but sober up and stop thinking we're the bees knees as westerners and decolonize. Just say, look guys, we've made a mistake, tell the Chinese and the Indians who are trying to emulate us, saying, look, it's not the way forward, we are wrong.
Anthony: Yeah.
Alice: And I think that has to be the first step. It's a journey. I've lived in that system, I've been educated in that system. It took years to kind of realise that actually -- no.
Anthony: Do you think Extinction Rebellion is the way forward?
Alice: I don't know. But I think they've done an amazing job at raising awareness of the climate crisis and of engaging a lot of people that were struggling to find where to put their energy. And there is an event coming up in York...
Anthony: Indeed, on Friday.
Alice: -- on Friday, yeah.
Anthony: I'll be there.
Alice: Which will be well worth attending. I won't be there myself because I'll be in Wales already, but I know the people who have been working on it and it's pretty amazing all the work that's been done behind it. But as a movement, I think they need to learn a lot because they are very new. But in the ways they've managed to put the energy of the people who have been working on these topics for years together it's quite fantastic.
Anthony: Yes. Well, thank you very much for your thoughts on this. It shows that we start with rare earth metals but it's part of a much wider perspective and a lot of challenges we've got to deal with.
Alice: That's right. There was one thing I was... Because I was thinking about the Congo again and it's not so much rare earth they're mining as tin and tungsten and tantalum and these things, which could be labeled as rare metals. There is child labour, there are child soldiers, with all those issues around this. But, in a way I don't know what is the best way to tackle that. I mean Fairphone have built their phone based on willing to raise the awareness of conflict minerals. But I wonder whether a better way to tackle the issue would be to work on weapons exportation -- which is a completely different topic. But if they're fighting, it's because we're selling them weapons. So there's the two ends of the spectrum and I don't think that end can be disassociated from what's going on.
Anthony: Yes.
Alice: So it's not just an electronic supply chain problem, it's the whole rotten system -- let's create conflict so we can get the minerals for cheaper and sell them the weapons.
Anthony: Yes.
Alice: Sorry... I added that, but feel free to...
Anthony: Thank you very much indeed. I'll stop it there I think.
Dr Alice Courvoisier with some profound and challenging thoughts. Thank you very much for that.
I hope you find the Sustainable Futures Report challenging and interesting, and I’m always keen to have your comments. In fact, if you’re a patron I’m setting up an online discussion so that you can join in and share your ideas. Contact me via the Patreon site - patreon.com/sfr - if you would like to take part.
That’s enough for this week. There’s a whole raft of stories I could have added and I’m sure there will be even more next week.
I’ll be here - I hope you will.
Until then that was the Sustainable Futures Report and I’m Anthony Day.
Bye for now.
Sources
La guerre des métaux rares - Gillaume Pitron
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)




