I have always maintained that the most effective way to protect our environment is to use LESS stuff! Buy less. Drive less. Use less electricity. And, etc. The demand for electricity is escalating at a shocking rate. Just AI draws mammoth amounts. As you have written here the materials used to maintain this extraordinary modern life we feel is a 'right', are terribly destructive to extract, effecting the very earth, her population, the soil, let alone the climate. Are we promoting our own ignorance so that we don't feel the guilt? It is complex and scary. I get that. However when I work with families and households to reduce their negative impact on our environment we start with consumption. 'Do you really really need that? How was it made? And where does it go when you are done with it?' Three simple questions before purchase.
You are doing good work with essays like this. I will share! Thank you so much.
That's a great point. We try to do the same in reducing consumption. It's crazy how much we have these days and crazier how much we throw away! Thanks for the reminder!
I totally agree. We need to move away from the consumerist economy. Our values simply need to change. We were born into a pretty ignorant world and we can't afford to stay that way.
Not a problem if we reform regulations and let nuclear power flourish. Extremely energy dense, vastly smaller land footprint than wind or solar, inexhaustible supply.
I was going to comment this. The best answers are the simplest: just turn off the lights. Wear a coat in winter, enjoy the heat of summer. It cannot get simpler than that.
1. I do not believe ICE vehicles and other human activities are the only reasons for climate change. Earth has gone through these kinds of cycles in the past. Climate change is happening in a very complex system, and trying to pick only human activities as the reason is like looking for a simple explanation for a complex problem, even though we may be one of the top reasons for this change. We also do not know what our planet will do with climate change. We see some indications that hurricanes are becoming stronger and contain more water. CNN:
In the past eight years, eight Category 4 or 5 hurricanes have made landfall on US soil.
That’s as many as the entire 57 years that came before it.
2. We will not reduce CO2 emissions without lowering consumption. I have noticed that people who buy EVs and install solar panels drive more and use more electricity than others.
3. When we say we have reduced pollution in developed countries, we should consider that in several cases, we have increased pollution in other parts of the world by the same amount or more as we moved manufacturing to other countries, so I am not sure if I can call it an absolute reduction.
4. We should be ready for the unintended consequences of these technologies, which will emerge over several decades.
5. My other fear is that we may prematurely lock into these technologies as we did with ICE and stop looking for alternatives or developing better technologies.
6. Also, we have not spent much time considering about the job losses these technology transition will cause and their consequences.
7. Current green technologies require a significant initial outlay to install or procure. Even with the subsidies, I do not think it is a long-term sustainable option. Norway will be a great place to look for the long-term challenges with a subsidy model.
8. I have also noticed that people buying solar panels and battery backups to install on their roofs do not account for the cost of solar panel maintenance/replacement, and the battery will also eventually die and require replacement. I know a little about construction, so I do not know how much it would cost to reinstall solar panels if you need to replace the roof. I spoke to a few people I know, but their reaction was more like, "I may not be in this house when it will be needed."
9. The critical minerals for these technologies are primarily in politically unstable countries, like Congo, which can make obtaining the minerals challenging if the geopolitical situation worsens. China will play a significant role, and I am unsure if any developed country has a good relationship with them.
10. Adapting these technologies will require behavior changes, such as reduced consumption and lifestyle changes, but asking people not to do something they are used to is much more complicated.
I believe observation #2 above may eventually lead to the Jevons paradox. This 19th-century theory by economist William Stanley Jevons posits that increased efficiency in resource use can lead to increased total consumption.
This could mean that as EVs become more efficient and cheaper to operate, people might be inclined to drive more, potentially leading to increased total energy consumption.
I was reading about it just now in the context of self-driving cars:
ReFED details that “In 2021, surplus food accounted for 380 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMT CO2e). This translates to 6% of total U.S. GHG emissions, according to the EPA’s Inventory — the annual equivalent of driving 84 million passenger vehicles or powering 73 million homes’ electricity.” and
“ The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) calculates that food waste makes up roughly 24% of the materials discarded in landfills — decaying food then produces methane as it breaks down, a greenhouse gas that is about 28 times more powerful than carbon monoxide when it comes to trapping heat in the atmosphere. Because food waste also decomposes quickly, it’s difficult for landfills to trap methane before it’s released into the atmosphere.“
“ There is clearer evidence that human-caused warming has heightened the destructiveness of hurricanes by amplifying their rainfall, researchers said. Scientists have long known that air can hold twice as much moisture for every 10 degree Celsius (18 degrees Fahrenheit) increase in temperature.”
Most poor and politically unstable countries, especially in Africa, South America, and, to some extent, Asia, will be initially exploited. The same thing happened with Middle Eastern countries during the 20th century until they nationalized the oil industry and gained control. However, this time, China will play as significant a role as Western countries. I have noticed another problem with non-oil commodities. There is no OPEC-like organization (as far as I know) to control the prices so that we may see more boom and bust with these items, but you can count on China to stabilize the pricing of rare-earth materials. However, this is my best guess. Like Feynman, I also leave the door ajar for unknowns. The world economy and geopolitics are complex systems, so other scenarios are possible, which may take us in entirely different directions.
If the need for these commodities continues, these countries will be better off in a few generations as long as they can focus on other areas beyond mining metals.
History’s cast of characters changes, but it’s the same movie over and over again. - Morgan Housel
That's my expectation. Too bad the US doesn't seem inclined to help this countries get a boost. Afghanistan has a ton of minerals and we did nothing to help them
It's perhaps not quite as bad as it seems. With EVs in particular, this discussion centers around cobalt in batteries, copper in wiring, and rare earth metals in motors. All are in the process of being solved or mitigated.
Tesla's Model S (2012) had 3 km of copper wire. Model 3 (2017_ had 1.8 km and Cybertruck has under 1 km. Copper use in EVs is now comparable to ICE.
Tesla and other manufacturers have reduced the amount of Cobalt used in batteries by over 70 percent in recent years with more to come. LFP batteries don't need any cobalt at all, or nickel for that matter.
Tesla is apparently close to producing a new motor that doesn't require much, if any, rare earth metals. Hopefully we will find out more about this next week.
Good article Michael. I had read about negative environmental impacts of solar, wind, EVs, and electrification more broadly, but it’s good to see a comprehensive article that also addresses social impacts.
Which negative impact most surprised or shocked you?
I think the craziest from a pollution perspective is the windmills shedding material and forever chemicals directly into the water. The most shocking was how bad the slavery for lithium is.
I prefer the move towards electrification even with the inefficiencies and people taking advantage of other people. The first years of any transition is archaic compared to future development. Moving from fossil fuel generation, which is reusing life, to nuclear generation, which though not fusion, uses physical laws from creation. As more use of energy is electrified, transitioning away from fossil will leverage the embedded user base to make lower GHGs.
We’ve had solar panels for almost nine months. The electric bill is divided into generation and distribution; costs are roughly 50-50. I don’t have batteries so any excess solar harvesting not used to charge the car or run the clothes dryer, etc, goes to the grid. The outflow amount is tracked so when we draw power off grid, our outflow is debited with zero cost for generation, but we have to pay for distribution. This encourages one to smooth out one’s consumption to the solar generation bubble.
Just lowering consumption will not get us to where we need to get to. If we don’t figure this out, Mother Nature will solve this as she does with any other organism that over runs its environment and lives beyond its resources.
We plan to move from our eight year old PHEV to a BEV with an 80 kWh battery that can be used for emergency backup, even acting like a fuel tanker via going to where an active grid to refuel and power the house for several days more.
I'd love to get off grid completely with things like gravity batteries (like a grandfather clock) and more that don't require huge technology. The issue is that it's hard to build a house around off grid. Things are designed to take huge amperage hits, like your AC and freezers, when they don't have to. That means the batteries and solar have to be over speced for what you really need.
The more I dig into the solutions provided for climate stewardship the more horrified I become and how bad they really are but how so many people do it and feel good!
I have always maintained that the most effective way to protect our environment is to use LESS stuff! Buy less. Drive less. Use less electricity. And, etc. The demand for electricity is escalating at a shocking rate. Just AI draws mammoth amounts. As you have written here the materials used to maintain this extraordinary modern life we feel is a 'right', are terribly destructive to extract, effecting the very earth, her population, the soil, let alone the climate. Are we promoting our own ignorance so that we don't feel the guilt? It is complex and scary. I get that. However when I work with families and households to reduce their negative impact on our environment we start with consumption. 'Do you really really need that? How was it made? And where does it go when you are done with it?' Three simple questions before purchase.
You are doing good work with essays like this. I will share! Thank you so much.
That's a great point. We try to do the same in reducing consumption. It's crazy how much we have these days and crazier how much we throw away! Thanks for the reminder!
I totally agree. We need to move away from the consumerist economy. Our values simply need to change. We were born into a pretty ignorant world and we can't afford to stay that way.
No more Amazon!!😅 which is hard out here in the country. But done. Nice to meet you Charlie!
Not a problem if we reform regulations and let nuclear power flourish. Extremely energy dense, vastly smaller land footprint than wind or solar, inexhaustible supply.
100% agree. You might also like this essay on Nuclear Power then!
https://www.polymathicbeing.com/p/nuclear-meltdown
I was going to comment this. The best answers are the simplest: just turn off the lights. Wear a coat in winter, enjoy the heat of summer. It cannot get simpler than that.
Here are my 2 cents and observations:
1. I do not believe ICE vehicles and other human activities are the only reasons for climate change. Earth has gone through these kinds of cycles in the past. Climate change is happening in a very complex system, and trying to pick only human activities as the reason is like looking for a simple explanation for a complex problem, even though we may be one of the top reasons for this change. We also do not know what our planet will do with climate change. We see some indications that hurricanes are becoming stronger and contain more water. CNN:
In the past eight years, eight Category 4 or 5 hurricanes have made landfall on US soil.
That’s as many as the entire 57 years that came before it.
2. We will not reduce CO2 emissions without lowering consumption. I have noticed that people who buy EVs and install solar panels drive more and use more electricity than others.
3. When we say we have reduced pollution in developed countries, we should consider that in several cases, we have increased pollution in other parts of the world by the same amount or more as we moved manufacturing to other countries, so I am not sure if I can call it an absolute reduction.
4. We should be ready for the unintended consequences of these technologies, which will emerge over several decades.
5. My other fear is that we may prematurely lock into these technologies as we did with ICE and stop looking for alternatives or developing better technologies.
6. Also, we have not spent much time considering about the job losses these technology transition will cause and their consequences.
7. Current green technologies require a significant initial outlay to install or procure. Even with the subsidies, I do not think it is a long-term sustainable option. Norway will be a great place to look for the long-term challenges with a subsidy model.
8. I have also noticed that people buying solar panels and battery backups to install on their roofs do not account for the cost of solar panel maintenance/replacement, and the battery will also eventually die and require replacement. I know a little about construction, so I do not know how much it would cost to reinstall solar panels if you need to replace the roof. I spoke to a few people I know, but their reaction was more like, "I may not be in this house when it will be needed."
9. The critical minerals for these technologies are primarily in politically unstable countries, like Congo, which can make obtaining the minerals challenging if the geopolitical situation worsens. China will play a significant role, and I am unsure if any developed country has a good relationship with them.
10. Adapting these technologies will require behavior changes, such as reduced consumption and lifestyle changes, but asking people not to do something they are used to is much more complicated.
I believe observation #2 above may eventually lead to the Jevons paradox. This 19th-century theory by economist William Stanley Jevons posits that increased efficiency in resource use can lead to increased total consumption.
This could mean that as EVs become more efficient and cheaper to operate, people might be inclined to drive more, potentially leading to increased total energy consumption.
I was reading about it just now in the context of self-driving cars:
https://www.theverge.com/2024/9/2/24232386/self-driving-car-jevons-paradox-robotaxi-waymo-cruise
That's pretty typical. That's why I think we need nuclear energy, preferrably fusion.
Here is another example of human activity causing CO2 and methane emission and
more here (https://www.foodandwine.com/california-bans-sell-by-dates-8723111):
ReFED details that “In 2021, surplus food accounted for 380 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMT CO2e). This translates to 6% of total U.S. GHG emissions, according to the EPA’s Inventory — the annual equivalent of driving 84 million passenger vehicles or powering 73 million homes’ electricity.” and
“ The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) calculates that food waste makes up roughly 24% of the materials discarded in landfills — decaying food then produces methane as it breaks down, a greenhouse gas that is about 28 times more powerful than carbon monoxide when it comes to trapping heat in the atmosphere. Because food waste also decomposes quickly, it’s difficult for landfills to trap methane before it’s released into the atmosphere.“
Great points.
Do you have data on the hurricanes? I've been thinking about digging into that a bit more.
Another one: https://substack.com/inbox/post/149967599
Start here as hurricanes are also complex, and there is no definitive answer yet. It mentions a few studies in the article:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2024/09/28/helene-storms-climate-change/
“ There is clearer evidence that human-caused warming has heightened the destructiveness of hurricanes by amplifying their rainfall, researchers said. Scientists have long known that air can hold twice as much moisture for every 10 degree Celsius (18 degrees Fahrenheit) increase in temperature.”
Which countries have the critical minerals needed for the energy transition?
https://ourworldindata.org/countries-critical-minerals-needed-energy-transition
Do you think those countries will be enriched or exploited?
Most poor and politically unstable countries, especially in Africa, South America, and, to some extent, Asia, will be initially exploited. The same thing happened with Middle Eastern countries during the 20th century until they nationalized the oil industry and gained control. However, this time, China will play as significant a role as Western countries. I have noticed another problem with non-oil commodities. There is no OPEC-like organization (as far as I know) to control the prices so that we may see more boom and bust with these items, but you can count on China to stabilize the pricing of rare-earth materials. However, this is my best guess. Like Feynman, I also leave the door ajar for unknowns. The world economy and geopolitics are complex systems, so other scenarios are possible, which may take us in entirely different directions.
If the need for these commodities continues, these countries will be better off in a few generations as long as they can focus on other areas beyond mining metals.
History’s cast of characters changes, but it’s the same movie over and over again. - Morgan Housel
What do you think?
That's my expectation. Too bad the US doesn't seem inclined to help this countries get a boost. Afghanistan has a ton of minerals and we did nothing to help them
Wow! I did not know it was this bad. I guess I never really stopped to think about it. This is eye-opening!
It's perhaps not quite as bad as it seems. With EVs in particular, this discussion centers around cobalt in batteries, copper in wiring, and rare earth metals in motors. All are in the process of being solved or mitigated.
Tesla's Model S (2012) had 3 km of copper wire. Model 3 (2017_ had 1.8 km and Cybertruck has under 1 km. Copper use in EVs is now comparable to ICE.
Tesla and other manufacturers have reduced the amount of Cobalt used in batteries by over 70 percent in recent years with more to come. LFP batteries don't need any cobalt at all, or nickel for that matter.
Tesla is apparently close to producing a new motor that doesn't require much, if any, rare earth metals. Hopefully we will find out more about this next week.
Good to know!
Good article Michael. I had read about negative environmental impacts of solar, wind, EVs, and electrification more broadly, but it’s good to see a comprehensive article that also addresses social impacts.
Which negative impact most surprised or shocked you?
I think the craziest from a pollution perspective is the windmills shedding material and forever chemicals directly into the water. The most shocking was how bad the slavery for lithium is.
Oh, I thought by slavery you referred to “artisanal” cobalt mining. I must have missed the part about lithium mining.
Sorry, I mistyped. Lithium is the crapshow in Mongolia. Cobalt was the slavery, you're right.
I prefer the move towards electrification even with the inefficiencies and people taking advantage of other people. The first years of any transition is archaic compared to future development. Moving from fossil fuel generation, which is reusing life, to nuclear generation, which though not fusion, uses physical laws from creation. As more use of energy is electrified, transitioning away from fossil will leverage the embedded user base to make lower GHGs.
We’ve had solar panels for almost nine months. The electric bill is divided into generation and distribution; costs are roughly 50-50. I don’t have batteries so any excess solar harvesting not used to charge the car or run the clothes dryer, etc, goes to the grid. The outflow amount is tracked so when we draw power off grid, our outflow is debited with zero cost for generation, but we have to pay for distribution. This encourages one to smooth out one’s consumption to the solar generation bubble.
Just lowering consumption will not get us to where we need to get to. If we don’t figure this out, Mother Nature will solve this as she does with any other organism that over runs its environment and lives beyond its resources.
We plan to move from our eight year old PHEV to a BEV with an 80 kWh battery that can be used for emergency backup, even acting like a fuel tanker via going to where an active grid to refuel and power the house for several days more.
I'd love to get off grid completely with things like gravity batteries (like a grandfather clock) and more that don't require huge technology. The issue is that it's hard to build a house around off grid. Things are designed to take huge amperage hits, like your AC and freezers, when they don't have to. That means the batteries and solar have to be over speced for what you really need.
This is such a critical truth that needs to be more widely understood.
The more I dig into the solutions provided for climate stewardship the more horrified I become and how bad they really are but how so many people do it and feel good!
Let's just go nuclear. I wanna see more hippies hugging reactors.
I agree completely. Its smart.
I am encouraged by the rise in SMRs this decade.
And we can go much much further with them. If we can overcome our fear.