While I agree that those dynamics can exist, it doesn’t have to be that way.
We could be saying to manufacturers “you are not allowed to sell products that contain materials or parts that are produced in ways that harm people and the environment in the following specific ways: …”
and forming agreements with other countries and trading blocs (ideally through institutions like the UN) to that effect.
This stuff doesn’t have to be a race to the bottom.
Sorry but I don’t think you understood my comment correctly. Unless you’re saying that no, we have to accept poor labour practices and rampant environmental degradation - which obviously are things antithetical to the happy, healthy, and alive humans you are claiming to advocate for
What I was saying is that it is not a binary choice between pushing damaging projects here or accepting damaging projects elsewhere, but instead wherever possible we should be doing what we can to mitigate and limit the environmental and social impacts of extraction, insofar as there are things we need to extract.
What I was saying is that it is not a binary choice between pushing damaging projects here or accepting damaging projects elsewhere, but instead wherever possible we should be doing what we can to mitigate and limit the environmental and social impacts of extraction, insofar as there are things we need to extract.
I mean, yes but there are always tradeoffs and time is a massive factor. If doing everything we can to mitigate local environmental damage means a process that delays the mining of minerals needed for mass-electrification and slows it down, then we’ll end up doing more overall environmental damage as we continue to burn fossil fuels.
While I agree that those dynamics can exist, it doesn’t have to be that way.
We could be saying to manufacturers “you are not allowed to sell products that contain materials or parts that are produced in ways that harm people and the environment in the following specific ways: …”
and forming agreements with other countries and trading blocs (ideally through institutions like the UN) to that effect.
This stuff doesn’t have to be a race to the bottom.
No we cannot.
We literally need those minerals to build things like solar panels and electrical infrastructure that will let us transition away from fossil fuels.
There is no perfectly clean energy source, and we need energy to keep humans alive, healthy, and happy.
Sorry but I don’t think you understood my comment correctly. Unless you’re saying that no, we have to accept poor labour practices and rampant environmental degradation - which obviously are things antithetical to the happy, healthy, and alive humans you are claiming to advocate for
I didn’t say anything about poor labour practices, but we do have to accept some environmental degradation.
There is literally no practical way to keep this many people alive without some environmental degradation.
OK so I was right that you did miss my point.
What I was saying is that it is not a binary choice between pushing damaging projects here or accepting damaging projects elsewhere, but instead wherever possible we should be doing what we can to mitigate and limit the environmental and social impacts of extraction, insofar as there are things we need to extract.
I see no reason why we can’t have high standards.
I mean, yes but there are always tradeoffs and time is a massive factor. If doing everything we can to mitigate local environmental damage means a process that delays the mining of minerals needed for mass-electrification and slows it down, then we’ll end up doing more overall environmental damage as we continue to burn fossil fuels.