cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/49040633
[...]
Villagers in northern China, Myanmar, or Madagascar wake up to dust on their crops and odd smells in their wells. Pastures turn into pits. Streams run a strange shade of green. The same metals that make magnets for wind turbines and motors for EVs arrive wrapped in an invisible trail of tailings, acid, and waste.
[...]
Take Baotou, in China’s Inner Mongolia, often called the rare earth capital of the world. For years, demand exploded as smartphones, wind turbines, and EVs took off. At the edge of the city, a man‑made lake of inky black waste spread wider and wider. From the air it looks like an oil spill frozen in place. On the ground, it smells faintly of chemicals and wet metal, a scent that clings to clothes.
Farmers in nearby villages once grew corn and raised sheep on gently rolling fields. As mining expanded, dust settled on their crops, and the water in shallow wells started to change. Some families reported skin rashes, others saw yields fall. Official data is scarce, and direct links are fiercely debated, but the feeling on the ground is simple: the land is not what it used to be. When your cows refuse to drink from a stream they used all their lives, you notice.
[...]
Can “clean” tech be less destructive?
For companies, the equivalent is building real supply‑chain visibility instead of pretty slide decks. That can mean independent audits at mine sites, long‑term contracts that reward better practices, and actually walking the ground where extraction happens. Soyons honnêtes : nobody does that for every single bolt and magnet. Yet a few start‑ups and automakers are testing shorter chains, recycling loops, and higher environmental standards that move impact closer to those making the promises.
Consumers have a role too, even if it feels small. Holding onto phones for an extra year, choosing a smaller EV, or backing brands that invest in recycling is not glamorous. On a hectic Tuesday, no one wakes up excited about a responsible supply‑chain choice. Still, multiplied across millions of purchases, those shifts slow the hunger for virgin rare earths and make room for alternatives to grow.
[...]
Hydrogen was never great, it's always been an oil lobby play because the majority of hydrogen - as I understand it - is a byproduct of the oil process. It makes very little sense to lose efficiency creating a highly flammable substance, lose efficiency transporting and storing that substance, lose efficiency supplying that substance to the end consumer, and then finally lose efficiency extracting the remaining energy from the substance.
Hydrogen may make sense in some circumstances but it should not, and I'd even go so far as to say it will not, replace gasoline. Electricity is by far the best supplier of power long term.
Elon liking something should be a red flag into a subject because he has shown himself to be both uneducated and against humanities best interests. It's not that Elon likes a thing therefore it's bad. It's that Elon likes bad things because Elon is bad, and therefore when you look into it it has a pattern of being bad.