Posted Mon 9 May 2022, 8:30pm

Updated Mon 9 May 2022, 4:13pm



https://www.abc.net.au/4corners/digging-in:-why-powering-a-green-future-means-mo...






“It's absolutely ironic. But to save the planet, we are going to need more mines.”  Government geoscientist

Around Australia new mining operations are being established and old sites, shuttered decades ago, are being brought back to life.  These miners aren’t digging for coal or gold, they’re hunting for other lucrative commodities – known as critical minerals.

“Critical minerals (are) everything you use for electric vehicles, for transport, for manufacturing.  We're really at the start of what could be a new mining boom.”  Minerals lobbyist

If you own a mobile phone, if you power your home with renewable energy or drive an electric vehicle, then these minerals are already playing a key part in your life. 

And they will play a vital role in all our futures.

But there is a hidden cost?

“We have to decide as a country. How valuable is a place and is it worth risking for mining?”  Research scientist

On Monday Four Corners investigates the new critical minerals mining boom and finds Australia is in the box seat to exploit a surge in worldwide demand.

“Australia is still the luckiest country. Last century we were the luckiest because we had all the coal and a huge amount of natural gas… what we know the future needs is things that Australia also has in spades.”  US energy policy adviser

From lithium mines in WA and the NT, to cobalt operations in NSW and tin mining in Tasmania, these critical minerals are not just making major profits, they’re playing a part in the super power rivalry between America and China.

“China has always known the value of critical minerals.  We are moving into a period now of geopolitical competition, everybody is looking for leverage. The Chinese are quite explicit about that.”  China analyst

With China dominating the control and supply of these critical minerals, many nations are keeping a close eye on Australia’s mining operations in the hope of breaking China’s dominance.

“We have met with heads of state, senior cabinet officials and global businesses…They all want to break this stranglehold.”  Mining CEO

But environmentalists are concerned that hard fought environmental protections are being put at risk in this new type of gold rush.

“It's not saving the planet. That's ridiculous. That is green spin, green extractivism, coming out of the mining industry.” Environment activist

This fascinating film reveals the tensions, and the big decisions Australia will have to make to enable the production of these vital minerals without inflicting further harm on our increasingly fragile environment.

“It's a confounding issue for the environmental movement. There's absolutely no doubt that we have to move to mining of critical minerals, if we are going to address the climate crisis... At the same time, we need to be absolutely sure that we are not repeating the mistakes of the past.” Environment lawyer

Digging In, reported by Angus Grigg, goes to air on Monday 9th May at 8.30pm. It is replayed on Tuesday 10th May at 11.00pm and Wednesday 11th at 10am. It can also be seen on ABC NEWS channel on Saturday at 8.10pm AEST, ABC iview and at abc.net.au/4corners.

lee wrote on May 10^th, 2022 at 8:40pm:



Watch it -
it makes sense.

I expect the scale will be well below current coal mining.

Quote:


Do you think that includes the coal?

freediver wrote on May 11^th, 2022 at 6:07pm:


The problem is to do with the mine tailings from the dams that
will be created - polluting rivers and surrounding sites.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 11^th, 2022 at 11:51pm:



And what is version of ECS/doubling of CO2? And of course extreme weather events are not climate.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 13^th, 2022 at 12:42am:



No petal. According to the WMO, a fuctionary of the UN, Climate is the average of 30 years of weather.

Today at my place there is less water vapour in the air - a lot has rained out. Then there are thunderstorms - it takes a lot of energy for them. That also reduces water vapour (and temperature).

"The 1970 Clean Air Act and termination of rainfall suppression in a U.S. urban area"

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1352231013002951

So it wasn't clean air?

" Based on the ERA5 reanalysis, we find that the global area of daily precipitation decreased from 43 to 41% of the global area between 1950 and 2020, whereas the total daily global rainfall increased from 1440 Gt to 1510 Gt per day. However, the estimated 24-hr global precipitation surface area varies when estimated from different reanalyses and the estimates are still uncertain"

https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal.pclm.0000029

Also we are coming out of the Little Ice Age. You really want to go back to that time? Droughts, crop failures, Deaths from cold, which still outnumbers death from heat, etc.


But listen ti that Mr Flim-Flam Flannery. It is CO2 what done it.

But he has changed his tune somewhat -

"PROFESSOR TIM FLANNERY: We’re already seeing the initial impacts and they include a decline in the winter rainfall zone across southern Australia, which is clearly an impact of climate change, but also a decrease in run-off. Although we’re getting say a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas of Australia, that’s translating to a 60 per cent decrease in the run-off into the dams and rivers. That’s because the soil is warmer because of global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using more moisture. So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that’s a real worry for the people in the bush. If that trend continues then I think we’re going to have serious problems, particularly for irrigation."

https://www.abc.net.au/local/archives/landline/content/2006/s1844398.htm

Edit: "Climate modelling suggests that, in the coming years, average rainfall will decrease over much of the continent. Simultaneously, extreme rainfall is likely to increase, bringing heavier downpours.

Much of the rainfall over Australia is lost to evaporation. The “thirst” of the atmosphere is measured by its evaporative demand. Since the Millennium Drought began in the 1990s, higher temperatures have driven evaporative demand up by increasing the air’s capacity to hold water vapour.

Decreasing annual rainfall and increasing evaporative demand will tend to result in drier soil. Drier soils are more absorbent, so less rain runs directly into waterways. This means that, even if we get heavier downpours in the future, they won’t necessarily produce the floods we rely on to fill dams. Unfortunately, this flood-reducing tendency won’t apply equally to urban environments (where it might actually be helpful) because we have paved over that absorbent soil in cities."
https://www.theguardian.com/westpac-scholars-rethink-tomorrow/2020/aug/14/what-y...

thegreatdivide wrote on May 13^th, 2022 at 10:20pm:


Now all you have to do is prove it was CO2 what done it. Theory says yes. But the earth is not a greenhouse. A greenhouse doesn't have a wind tunnel through it.

Apparently before the end of the LIA, when temperatures started rising, it was all natural and everything since is the evil CO2. No natural variation at all. Natural variation has never been measured. Without that you can't calculate what CO2 has or hasn't done.


Looking at that, despite greater CO2, there has been no increase in temperature since January 2013.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 13^th, 2022 at 10:20pm:



Yeah the magic molecule can do everything. Raise temperature, lower temperature, cause drought, cause extreme rainfall, Cause extreme heat, cause extreme cold.

Is there nothing it can't do?