Lithium: the New Environmental Crisis
The BBC (of all outlets) has an extended piece on how green tech is feeding another environmental crisis. It seems that while the better off indulge their desire to feel good by running EVs, and can now look forward to a taxpayer-funded £3,750 grant towards the cost, they’re actually helping to wreck the planet in a whole new way.
Back in the Bad Old Days when the wealthy started to enjoy the fruits and freedoms of the Industrial Revolution with steam trains and coal-fired ocean-going liners, the damage to Britain was all too apparent in the coal mines, open-cast mines, the filthy air and disgusting rivers.
Today the solution is simply to relocate the devastation somewhere else. The Chelsea Tractor EV comes with its own consequences. The problem is lithium for batteries and the skyrocketing demand for it, which requires the use of vast evaporation pools in Chile, the world’s second-largest source after Australia:
Raquel Celina Rodriguez watches her step as she walks across the Vega de Tilopozo in Chile’s Atacama salt flats.
It’s a wetland, known for its groundwater springs, but the plain is now dry and cracked with holes she explains were once pools.
“Before, the Vega was all green,” she says. “You couldn’t see the animals through the grass. Now everything is dry.” She gestures to some grazing llamas.
For generations, her family raised sheep here. As the climate changed, and rain stopped falling, less grass made that much harder.
But it worsened when “they” started taking the water, she explains.
“They” are lithium companies. Beneath the salt flats of the Atacama Desert lie the world’s largest reserves of lithium, a soft, silvery-white metal that is an essential component of the batteries that power electric cars, laptops and solar energy storage.
As the world transitions to more renewable energy sources, the demand for it has soared.
In 2021, about 95,000 tonnes of lithium was consumed globally – by 2024 it had more than doubled to 205,000 tonnes, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).
By 2040 it’s predicted to rise to more than 900,000 tonnes.
Most of the increase will be driven by demand for electric car batteries, the IEA says.
Chile’s government has been encouraging the industry, but it comes at a price:
Mining companies predominantly extract lithium by pumping brine from beneath Chile’s salt flats to evaporation pools on the surface.
The process extracts vast amounts of water in this already drought-prone region.
There has already been a visible impact on the fauna and flora, because the underground water is a finite resource and does not natural replace itself at the same rate the miners are removing it:
Faviola Gonzalez is a biologist from the local indigenous community working in the Los Flamencos National Reserve, in the middle of the Atacama Desert, home to vast salt flats, marshes and lagoons and some 185 species of birds. She has monitored how the local environment is changing.
“The lagoons here are smaller now,” she says. “We’ve seen a decrease in the reproduction of flamingos.”
She said lithium mining impacts microorganisms that birds feed on in these waters, so the whole food chain is affected.
She points to a spot where, for the first time in 14 years, flamingo chicks hatched this year. She attributes the “small reproductive success” to a slight reduction in water extraction in 2021, but says, “It’s small.”
Naturally, the mining companies are allegedly listening, and planning to extract lithium directly from brine:
At one of their plants in Antofagasta, Valentín Barrera, Deputy Manager of Sustainability at SQM Lithium, says the firm is working closely with communities to “understand their concerns” and carrying out environmental impact assessments.
He feels strongly that in Chile and globally “we need more lithium for the energy transition.”
The locals are, understandably, less than convinced:
Sara becomes tearful when she speaks about the future.
“The salt flats produce lithium, but one day it will end. Mining will end. And what are the people here going to do? Without water, without agriculture. What are they going to live on?”
“Maybe I won’t see it because of my age, but our children, our grandchildren will.”
She believes mining companies have extracted too much water from an ecosystem already struggling from climate change.
Conversely:
There is a common argument from people who support lithium mining: that even if it damages the environment, it brings huge benefits via jobs and cash.
Daniel Jimenez, from lithium consultancy iLiMarkets, in Santiago, takes this argument a step further.
He claims that environmental damage has been exaggerated by communities who want a pay-out.
As ever, whether it’s ‘green tech’ or any other development in history, whichever you spin it, if you want to understand it, just follow the money. Next time you get lectured by a smug ‘I’m doing the right thing’ EV owner, just point them to this article. Perhaps one day they’ll be vilified by the eco-righteous of the hair-shirted future just as those who own diesel and petrol cars are now. It’s certainly looking that way.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
“Perhaps one day [EV owners will] be vilified by the eco-righteous of the hair-shirted future just as those who own diesel and petrol cars are now. It’s certainly looking that way.”
Let’s hope that the internal combustion engine is once again favoured by the hair-shirted. I don’t see an alternative power plant for our transportation needs…
Be patient. Negative externality: this is a cost of something which is not contained within the price set between producer and consumer, but a cost that is incident elsewhere. Simple example: chewing gum. The cost of getting discarded gum off pavements, public seating, clothing, shoes, is not covered within the selling price of the gum, and is paid by local authorities and private individuals. Pigou taxes (named after a Mr Pigou, economist) is a tax placed on goods to “internalise” the cost incident on others outside the transaction. So a Pigou tax on chewing gum would internalise the cost of cleaning up the stuff which would then be paid by the person chewing the gum, not those having to clean it up. Lots of problems with Pigou taxes: setting the correct level, making sure the tax collected goes to cover the cost, eg cleaning up chewing gum. So. The very foundation of Climate change/Net Zero – why it is sooooo important – is based on negative externalities. The “cost” of climate change will be incident on future generations. We enjoy the benefits of emitting CO2 from fossil fuels, others will bear the cost. We MUST pay. The carbon tax levied… Read more »
Trouble with Pigou taxes, like the compensation utilities pay councils for the damage to streets,m is the recipients spend the money on something else.
In France a few years ago, Pigou taxes on fuel which led to the Gilets Jaunes protests, were described as “revenue neutral” because there would be balancing reductions on other taxation. The object being to encourage less fossil fuel use, not raise money for the State to spend.
In due course the legislation was struck down by the Constitutional Court as falling unequally on all citizens.
The Government then complained it would leave a 4€ billion hole in its budget.
Unlike thoise who benefited from slavery, those who “benefit” from EV can be identified from vehicle records and they alopne should in the future pay for damage to the environment of Chile and elsewhere.
Internalise the costs.
Seems that getting everyone into EVs will be a bit of a Pyrrhic victory for the environmentalists.
Destroy the Planet to save the Planet.
The WFH revolution now means that Parliament can operate remotely, MPs, peers can operate whilst dispersed in their communities.
That would make them a great deal more accountable to their voters and far less prone to being influenced by the silliness that passes for wisdom on so many matters, not least nut zero, covid, DEI, the EU and so many others within the frankly mad Westminster/Whitehall enclave.
Parliamentary buildings could be given over to the National Trust, with the useful side effect of exposing that organisation to international scrutiny and opprobrium, leading to its own systemic reform as well.
Even worse, the WFH revolution means the globalisation of office jobs as we have globalised manufacturing jobs. They will be offshored
“As the world transitions to more renewable energy sources, the demand for it has soared”
There is no renewable energy.
Lithium has a finite life and I am not aware that the planet is manufacturing it on a regular basis.
Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Perpetual motion does not exist.
A wind turbine extracts energy from the wind, which leaves less energy in the air-stream to be extracted by the turbine behind.
There is no stock of wind or sunlight which can be renewed when the amount available is “used”, but stocks of fossil fuels can be renewed.
Wind and solar are not “sustainable” because no action by Mankind can make them so, it is entirely in the hands of natural conditions. On the other hand Mankind can ensure a sustainable supply of fossil fuels by his endeavours.
Eco-freaks invent their own baby-talk language.
Sorry mate you have your thermodynamics in a muddle. Fossil fuels, wind and solar are all driven by the sun. Mankind makes them all so by his diligence in capturing them Solar is immediate, but variable, wind is derived and variable, fossil takes eons , maybe of limited duration if we as such over fish it, but when you have it it is very concentrated and reliable. When the coal and oil is all mined it will be gone, so not sure what you mean by mankind ensuring a sustainable supply. You are assuming an endless supply of useful fossil fuel, which is against the 2nd law. I note you quoted the 1st law.
Mankind makes wind and sunshine? I never knew that. Fossil fuels are not “driven” by anything, they are the product of biochemical activity, part decomposition in anaerobic conditions and extreme pressure. And you “mate” are conflating stored energy in fossil fuels – with free energy in the form of infra-red radiation from the Sun which will dissipate back into space, and Wind which is the result of the Earth’s rotation and differences in atmospheric conditions, and is kinetic energy (not solar) which dissipates as heat and noise caused by friction from contact with various structures or at a molecular level – air molecules rubbing together. All resources are scarce, but free market capitalism turns scarcity into abundance which is why we now have more usable fossil fuels than we did a century ago despite increase rate of use. It can be assumed our supply of fossil fuels is sustainable for as long as we need them because the market process will find new ways to make it so, through innovation and invention of new resources which will long precede our reliance on them. As the man said, the Stone Age didn’t end because Mankind ran out of stones… we still… Read more »
👍👍👍
It’s only “new” to the BBC and virtue-signallers.
As I’m always saying, Net Zero fanatics couldn’t care less about people or nature.
This may soon resolve itself, because nobody wants to buy electric vehicles, and the manufacturers are losing their shirts, including Elon Musk.
Open cast mining was rare in this country hence why our coal was more expensive to mine. Other were also mines with tunnels such as in Cleveland when today it could be opencast mined much cheaper. The mining of coal saved our dwindling forests as the trees could not grow fast enough to provide the fuel we needed and nobody thought of felling and chipping the forests of America to ship them over here.
And fossil fuels helped reduce the demand for whale oil which was used in domestic and street lights. The whaling industry finally died when palm oil, which a lot of environmentalists hate, replaced whale oil in margarine, cosmetics etc.
A major cause of deforestation in a lot of developing countries is people using wood or charcoal as fuel for cooking. If they had access to cheap fossil fuels e.g. liquid paraffin or kerosene they wouldn’t need to chop down forests. This is something environmentalists ignore in their totally misguided crusade against fossil fuels.
To be fair to the environmentalists on Palm Oil, many Palm oil plantations were established on cleared rainforest.
Australia’s lithium is produced from rock sources. You have to dig out about 100tonnes of rock to get 1 tonne of lithium. Then you have to transport and crush the rock and extract the lithium in sulphuric acid. Super environmentally friendly. Produces about 10 tonnes of CO2 for every tonne of lithium. We should just be mining coal
The Chilean catastrophe is not the first environmental tragedy caused by water loss. I have said for years that a major cause of climate change is the abstraction of water in the old USSR to grow cotton, causing the Aral Sea to dry out. It’s time someone properly investigated the real effect.
Eco Lunacy …. destroying the environment in order to reduce the concentration of CO2 in the air, which plants NEED to live. Slaughtering birds, bats, insects, sea mammals …. to provide unreliable, intermittent energy.
Perhaps David Attenborough could do a documentary about the environmental and wildlife destruction carried out in the name of “saving the planet.”
Typically the BBC has to say because climate change in every other paragraph without citing any evidence!