A couple years ago activists altered the scientific phrase established to shed light on the damage human driven carbon emissions do to the Earth systems that maintain the climatic conditions we’re accustomed to in an effort to force political action. While commendable, their decision to do so was short sighted, as it ignored the fact that hyperbole like it had forced expert opinion into the background before. This time would be no different, as that hyperbole would lead Mainers to question the science upon which the decision to approve the construction of the New England Clean Energy Connect was based.
The first thing to understand about Climate Change is that it occurs gradually. Yes, this bout of change is occurring more rapidly because it’s driven by industrialization rather than natural processes, but it too has been gradual. They began to rise in the so-called pre-industrial era, as Europe forced its industry into regions like America. That caused the level of atmospheric carbon to rise 50%, at least as far as can be determined by scientists studying ice cores and other indicators. Since the industrial revolution, when Europe begins to introduce fossil-fuels driven industry to its colonies, the level of atmospheric carbon has risen 150%. This forms what researchers call the “hockey stick” in graphs depicting the level of atmospheric carbon over time.
I think its extremely important that we include the pre-industrial era, even though carbon levels begin to increase at an accelerated rate later because it reminds us that our behaviour is as responsible for it as our technology is. That’s particularly important as we’re encouraged to believe industry offers the only path forward. Behavior is clearly going to have to play a part, perhaps even limiting the extent to which industry is allowed to participate in the response to Climate Change.
Unfortunately, industry will always encourage us to believe the conveniences it places before us are needs. This is something the electronics industry has perfected in recent decades, insisting it is saving us from the pulp and paper industry while promoting conflict and environmental disaster to attain the materials and bases of manufacturing they use to pump out computers, cell phones, and other devices they hope we’ll replace with the latest version. The problem with electrification is that it encourages us to believe we have to quadruple our output of Cobalt, Lithium, Nickel, and some Rare Earth Elements (REE’s) by 2030, even though those who study the mining industry say it’s impossible. This is explained in a 278 page report entitled ‘The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions’.
Beyond citing diminishing levels of purity in the ores and slurries these elements are extracted from to explain why it will be impossible to quadruple mining outputs, this report goes on to explain how low governance scores and high emissions intensities in those regions to be mined will cause carbon levels to rise as a result. Still other studies explain how limited supplies of these minerals will prevent us from even electrifying the machinery required to mine, refine, and transport these materials quickly, with one saying it’s highly unlikely we’ll even electrify 25% of light-duty vehicles by 2050 due to a shortage of Copper, Cobalt, Lithium, Nickel, and REE’s.
All this says is we’re going to have to adapt our plans, and that deindustrialisation is going to have to be a part of them. And ‘The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions’ offers an option. Use those technologies that have better mineral input to energy output/storage ratios and do without where you can. There’s no reason to burden ourselves with the potential conflicts and environmental disasters that would be necessary to quadruple mining outputs because there are less electronic tech dependent ways of generating electricity without emitting carbon. We just have to free ourselves from the coma the electronics industry has put us in.
Jamie Beaulieu
Farmington, Maine
