“Sacrifice Zones” The Blind Spots of the Green Energy Transition - BSC 2022

Olivia Lazard, fellow at Carnegie Europe, opened the session with a presentation about global warming saying: “Compared to pre-industrial times earth is 1,3 degrees warmer”. She emphasizes the transition from fossil economy to mineral economy and that: “the green transformation for decarbonization is in the heart of geopolitical struggle, geo-economics and democracy”. Lazard mentions examples from Madagascar and Central-Africa Republic, describing the consequences of having big companies extracting raw materials for green tech.  
Panelists:
• Olivia Lazard, Fellow, Carnegie Europe
• Ann Maest, Vice President, Buka Environmental
• Marta Szpala, Senior Fellow, Center for Eastern Studies
Moderator: Márton Dunai, Financial Times (HUN)
The report from this panel can be found here: belgradesecurityconference.or...

[@christophercharles3169]

Take into consideration the fact that an electric vehicle involves 10 times the mining to extract all of the required minerals to make it and it takes a huge amount of fossil fuels in order to perform this extraction. Approximately 500,000 tons of aggregate has to be mined in order to produce the minerals needed to make an electric battery. If you do the math, you see that by the time the EV is built, it has already generated as much as 50% of the CO2 that an ICE vehicle will generate in its lifetime. When you factor in the fact that EVs are only as good for the environment from a CO2 perspective as their energy sources are and that ICE vehicle motors can be recycled efficiently at a profit whereas EV battery recycling is resource intensive at best and questionable at worst and can't be done at a profit, you quickly realize that the overall benefit is not what its trumped up to be. I have seen estimates that the reduction in CO2 generation, if the world's fleet of car and light trucks were converted to EVs, would be anywhere from 10% to -10%. Lets forget for the moment that it would take decades, if not a century, to increase mining efforts by a factor of 10. There is the very real possibility that if we go down this EV road that in 50 years or so we will not only have made little difference to CO2 emissions, we may have increased them. Not to mention the fact that the use of fossil fuels will have increased right along with those efforts. The end result, unless Nuclear is widely used, will be that we will not have impacted our CO2 emission levels in any significant way and that they will still be higher than today. That's has to be a sobering reality for any alarmist.

[@giorgiocooper9023]

Yes, there should be a „green“ energy transition …. meaning - going full blast for nuclear and hydro electricity production only !

[@kingfillins4117]

Yes but that would negate the real objective to create global tyranny and soft invasions of territories under the guise of saving the planet?

[@robertharper8557]

People are deluded make an effort achieve the Green Target of reducing CO2. What do plants animals including humans produce CO2. What do plants recycle CO2 removing that will destroy humanity and life on the planet.

[@Reziac]

Someone at Prager U figured out that to satisfy the mineral requirements for full conversion to 'green' would require mining 100% of the Earth's land surface.

[@goodflop255]

@@giorgiocooper9023 Makes a lot of sense

[@anthonykenny1320]

unfortunately they all conveniently side stepped the main issue which is the increasing cost of extracting these minerals from increasingly lower grade ores this requires mining more ore and crushing it down to 100 microns to extract tiny amounts of the mineral copper is down to 0.1% which means one tonne of ore produces one kilogram of copper and global demand is 28 million tonnes that is a loyt of mining all of which has to be done with diesel machines

[@dodiewallace41]

Thinking that renewable matters at all is a mistake. The goals should be energy security, affordability, and environmental protection without regard to being called RE or not. Unfortunately, many equate being called RE with being better for humanity and the environment. Sometimes it is. Sometimes, it's not. As long as energy policy is driven by RE ideology, we are not able to critically examine our options and are not making the best choices.

[@Mike-or3ry]

Alex Epstein 's "FOSSIL FUTURE" on sale now.The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels. HUMAN FLOURISHING

[@valoriethechemist]

Specifically, we should be looking at saving our most essential technologies such as medical and emergency response and agriculture and abandoning nearly any other energy use whatsoever.

[@Kenlwallace]

This discussion exemplifies renewable’s’ Elephant in the room. Namely that Nuclear is the near zero carbon solution with minimal environmental disruption compared to ‘renewables’. Today’s new 3rd and 4th generation designs are passively (inherently) safe and increasingly faster and more affordable to build. Without military-style urgency of a Nuclear ramp up there is simply no way of avoiding well over 1.5 degrees of global warming within two decades. By then, positive feedback takes over at an apocalyptic pace. I’m now 70 and won’t see the worst of it. Hopefully my deluded years of voting ‘green’ won’t seriously affect my next incarnation.

[@zachjones6944]

Russia and China use SMRs.

[@johnheath5373]

It's a joke to not consider nuclear if we expect the same standard of energy supply.

[@Kenlwallace]

Not to mention that we will soon need three-times today’s supply

[@dnickaroo3574]

It will be impossible without Nuclear Energy.

[@JamesFitzgerald]

Nobel Prize winner William Nordhaus In a January 2020 interview with Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Nordhaus claimed that achieving the 2 °C goal of the Paris agreement was "impossible", stating that, "even if we make the fastest possible turn towards zero emissions, CO2 will continue to accumulate in the atmosphere, because we cannot simply shut down our economy". He asserted that he was not alone in making this assessment, claiming that half of the simulation arrived at the same conclusion. He also remarked that the two-degree target was set without reference to the costs of meeting the target.[26][27] Nordhaus is correct. We should focus on adaptation. Of course this won't happen because too many carpet baggers are stealing too much money from taxpayers via the great subsidized "renewables" (they aren't renewable) gold rush.

[@glennmitchell9107]

She described current global temperature as a function of global warming models, rather than as a record of actual temperature observations.

[@kingfillins4117]

Yes like so many, accepting a hypothetical construct and playing with people’s lives liberty and sovereignty, pretending its true.

[@JaseboMonkeyRex]

"We all know it will be dirty business" Good talk, and frames the conversation well.... But sounds to me like the beginning of the 20th century with a quickly rising geo strategic tensions competing for critical resources and we all know how that turned out .... 😢

[@kimlibera663]

Where I agree w/ Olivia is that mining is an industry that indeed disturb the sediments from which the ores are retrieved. Some of the processes involved in separation of ores from unwanted stuff involve use of elements that allow stuff to sink to the bottom. Now w/ traditional oil, oil is confined to sandstone/limestone/salt dome formations & electro-conductivity tests are used to scout out those rock layers.

[@glennmitchell9107]

Odd that a conference discussing how industry should best be used to extract minerals essential to remediating the catastrophic effects of climate change, would not include any industry representatives. It's almost as if the organizers and participants don't want to discover any workable solutions.

[@glennmitchell9107]

How is Blackrock and other financial conglomerates motivated by ESG involved in the failure of the green energy transition? Are they playing both ends against the middle? How transparent are Blackrock's financial dealings? For that matter, how transparent are the finances of the participants in the Belgrade Security Conference? How do we know they don't have direct, or even indirect economic interests in the corporations receiving government or other institutional funding?

[@JaseboMonkeyRex]

These minerals are the new oil, and looks like we have not learned a thing ... The same thinking that brought us the problems are about to continue and accelerate... And listening to these people except for the first woman seem not to understand the dynamics unfolding... Its totally naive to think that huge conflict are not coming and huge environmetal destruction isn't virtually guranteed as the scale of the issues sink in and panic to gain access and produce the required volumes of all these minerals grows ... Because no one has even mentioned how large the demand will become versus the resource base. These conversations need to be had in context of the total scale of the demand ....

[@sydgriffin7591]

Well said. Why is this not being discussed now, before we stumble into these obvious pitfalls? Oh wait, we're humans. We can't seem to stop shooting ourselves in our collective feet.

[@augusthallmann96]

small nuclear is the answer ,not windmills and solar for most population s

[@GoldberryIsland]

Dear climate apologists, Most people would not object to additions and options to existing energy infrastructure. However, the current approach in general is toxic to human society in many ways. First of all, if you talk to people about this subject or anything else, be respectful. Secondly, you cannot change overnight what has been building for more than a century, no matter how frightened you feel. You have got to allow questions and opposing views if any of the climate goals are going to have more support. You cannot treat people like a disease and then wonder why they won't listen to your views. Science has dissenting views on this as on many other topics. So take the foot off the gas and remember how to relate to people. Control only ends up being counterproductive. Try respect, you might find that other people aren't as dumb as you thought. Try conversing, and then understand you can't control others. So if you think oil is bad don't use any. If you think air conditioning is wrong get rid of it. You can be an example instead of looking like a hypocrite. Thanks a lot!

[@kj1483]

2:36 / 1:04:23 through to 18:07 / 1:04:23 what we thought was a green, soft, fluffy idea… has become new geo political struggle to control resources and production chains of materials required to implement green tec. Whether players believe in carbon reduction or not, this still represents opportunity to control, manipulate and profit in a new, booming market Russia is creating misinformation info bubbles. And using Wagner as cheap interference in countries with fragile institutions and a weak state capacity

[@aryaman05]

spot on !👍😊

[@dnickaroo3574]

It is all Russia’s fault - what an amazing conclusion!

[@FAS1948]

The opportunity for a relatively smooth transition to a low carbon evonomy was missed 40 years ago, and there is now no painless way out of the climate crisis, and despite multiple governments commtments, atmospheric CO2 is still increasing. Are we collectively too stupid to survive?

[@christinearmington]

Apparently

[@dnickaroo3574]

What happened after the Paris Conference in 2015 - NOTHING.

[@jsbrads1]

LoL, we can easily switch to nuclear until fusion is ready, but the alarmists don’t want to win.

[@SisterAbdullahX]

We will survive.

[@marctorrades1760]

I think we need to really think mining in space and put more development into that direction. Earth mining is a no no if we want to keep going the way we are . It might seem far-fetched, but it's the only future for the green revolution. The focus of the next generation will have to be space . The way it's going is not sustainable for the future .

[@johnjdumas]

Huge hidden costs not accounted for: One subsidy dollar takes about $20 in economic activity to generate which in turn produces 20 times more carbon. Also to give out tax dollars an equal tax or inflation must also be compensated by increased production. Higher prices also produce vast amounts of carbon. Nukular and geothermal produce much less carbon unless subsidies or higher prices are incurred. We now have much better drilling and reactor techniques.

[@kingfillins4117]

It’s ironic that she notes the power play around competition for resources, to creat “clean tech” (which doesn’t really exist) but not the power play and premise that there’s a climate issue to begin with. If there’s no climate issue. Who is using the false flag of climate to gain power and why?

[@goodflop255]

If climate change is such an urgent issue then would it not make sense for the whole world to concentrate on helping the biggest emitters reduce their emissions? 5 countries, China (31%,) U.S. (13.5%,) India (7.3%,) Russia (4.7%) and Japan (2.9%) account for almost 60% of global emissions. There are several factors that account for the placings of these countries that could be discussed or argued but the bottom line is that a reduction of just 10% in that total emission count would reduce total world emissions by 6% and get the World a long way towards reducing the damage being caused. China is still using coal and won't make any appreciable progress in reducing that use until 2030 and that may not be soon enough. India still emits large quantities of CO2 from simple cooking fires. It will cost a great deal to get these 5 countries further along the road to the kind of reductions needed and it would make sense for the rest of the World to help them get to that goal. There could be compensatory deals made to give the contributing countries some goods or services either presently or at some future date. The rest of the World would continue to try to reduce emissions as well and if that 40% could be reduced by 5% it would add 2% to the total reduction to get to 8% as a start and without destroying the economies of these smaller emitters. All countries in the World should begin an ongoing tree planting program everywhere and especially in remote areas and undertake a concerted effort to properly maintain existing forests to clear deadwood and other flammable debris to reduce the damage done by fires. A thorough investigation should be done to determine how to stop the acceleration of the spread of these fires. Trees are a very important weapon in the reduction of CO2 and the production of oxygen.

[@robertthompson9455]

You will never see fossil fuel going anywhere !...

[@emese-tundetorok1135]

Russia didn't start a war with Ukraine! We know that Ukraine is rich in resources important for America (not just Russia) . Simple people are not really stupid, we read search for real information.

[@anthonymorris5084]

Sending tanks into a country and hurtling missiles at their cities is what started this war. If America wanted Ukraine's resources (nice conspiracy theory) getting Russia to invade would not be the plan.

[@douglasengle2704]

Earth's greenhouse effect is the model of a system always in saturation. A system in saturation can not have any more effect with the addition of more of its active elements. All the greenhouse radiant energy from the earth’s surface is entirely absorbed by greenhouse gases within 20 meters of the surface to add 10°F (5.55°C) to earth's average temperature. After 20 meters from the surface there is no more radiant greenhouse energy. Its further heat transfer is by convection i.e. molecules bumping into each other. This is high school taught science. The United Nation's IPCC science report makes it clear it is not discussing active greenhouse gas behavior when in the back of a 200 page report it declares it took its greenhouse gas samples at 20 THOUSAND meters altitude and only at that one altitude! This is a legal back stop to protect the instigators from prosecution of criminal fraud. It can be argued a reasonably high school educated person would know better than to accept the report as being relevant to global warming caused by greenhouse gases because by only sampling greenhouse gases at 20,000 meters altitude the report has made it transparent it is not discussing active greenhouse gas behavior or earth's greenhouse effect. Such legal back stops are common when misrepresenting products through vague wordings. Such items as a beverage labeled "All Natural Fruit Drink Flavor" might be discovered when reading the ingredients to have a statement "contains no actual fruit juice". Noncondensing greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide can have a share in the greenhouse effect, but they can not change the overall greenhouse effect because it is always in saturation due to the strong greenhouse gas water vapor. At 1% average tropospheric water vapor 99-1/2% of earth's greenhouse effect is due to the strong greenhouse gas water vapor. After global warming was rising at 2/10°C per decade in the 1970s and 1980s it suddenly paused in 1991 when global warming was reported at 1.1°C and has not gone any higher than that reported temperature as of 2022 when global warming was reported at 1.1°C. Global warming has been stalled at about 1°C for thirty years prior to 2022.

[@mybirds2525]

The whole conceptual problem with your idea about critical resources being only in these locations. The USA has massive deposits as does Canada. The problem is global environmentalist movements shut our mines down, and prevent us from processing these ores and minerals.

[@darrenbaker1564]

First 10 minute summary and suggesting need to be under 1.5 degrees before tipping points is just not true or scientific. Minerals challenges talks about appear to be valid. But only if assuming Carbon dioxide is the boogie man requiring urgent electric alternatives.

[@GregoryBoyce-wf2ie]

Democracy blame was not making sense, Don'r place blame of anything just look at solutions. We let this go to long. I have ecologist for many years. First the economy is doomed. So the solution is rural grassroots living

[@anthonymorris5084]

What evidence is there for a "doomed" economy?

[@robertthompson9455]

Blind spots ?...I'll say. If you had those blind spots you couldn't drive or even walk !...

[@robertthompson9455]

Temp rise of 1.3 degrees, all the better...How about 6....

[@coolworx]

Bunch of scrambling ants on a burning planet.

[@paulweber9945]

You might like some perspective kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y3ardJqrf9Vsm7M

[@sydgriffin7591]

Excellent link, thank you! I've been following Nate Hagens for just a few months now, and am very impressed by his global energy analysis. Jean Marc Jancovici is new to me, but it's hopeful to see he's arrived at the same conclusions and is a well respected intellectual in France.

[@starpergaming2688]

What we really need is put to a halt car dependence and consumerism. Those two are the key drivers of carbonisation of the planet. We really don't need to transfer to a green tech, by putting more stress on earth. What we need is to stop huge fabrics and personal cars. Those two factors would immediately provide us with good outcome. But, there is simply no will on the side of politicians all over the world. As those politicians directly profit from industrial complex and car manufacturers. Simply look how instead of getting rid of personal transportation and car dependency we remove cars with ev's. Without any thought of tomorrow really. We put more stress on the globe today by developing new industries that in their own term will spike CO2 emissions. And perpetuating car dependency and consumerism. Which is the real cause of all problems. Now I'm not an expert. And this is pretty shallow perspective. But somehow very few people address the real issue. And I'm not car hater. I'm devoted driver myself. My car is my food. I'm a taxi driver that absolutely love to drive. And consume. However, if no one addressing the problem, maybe I should.

[@socratesrocks1513]

Removing cars will disproportionately harm the working class who depend on vehicles to get to work, the disabled who need them to get to appointments and family members who need them to help their elderly relatives. Get rid of aircraft (particularly private jets) for everything except delivery of food and goods. No more holidays aborad for the middle and upper classes. One private jet pumps more into the atmosphere per person in one short trip than a car does in a year. Instead of hurting the poor who have no choice, force the rich to stop with the holidays and jetting all over the place for meetings that could be done on Zoom calls. No more green activists doing their thing and then jetting off to Tahiti. They have a CHOICE. The poor do not!

[@starpergaming2688]

@@socratesrocks1513 there is always a reason. World isn't black and white. Also... People who depend on cars to get to work is product of car dependency. Get rid of airplanes will not resolve the problem. And I agree, holidays abroad is kinda stupid. But it's also how you don't get isolated from the rest of the world. Which is large. Also, your argument about relatives. You won't get rid of million cars, but you would get rid of a single airline that may carry same amount of people, faster, efficiently, convenient, and to a further extent, over the sea, for example. BTW what is "middle class"? Does it even exist today? No. You focused on "please don't take away my car. I don't want any changes". Again. Pretty dull. And as I said. I'm myself rely on my personal car as source of income. And yet I still think, that the solution is ban cars ( not all of course, only private). And stop overproduction, and consumerism. Something that no corporation, no government isn't interesting in. Good point on rich. But you also defending your own position. Ban consumerism, and effectively capitalism, and there will be no rich with private jets. Your opinion, sadly, shaped by same rich people that you hate so much.

[@sydgriffin7591]

I've reached the same conclusion about cars a long time ago. They are far too resource intensive no matter what their power source is. We need to rearrange our economy away from individual car ownership to have a fighting chance of avoiding climate devastation. It's a tall order, but it could have beneficial knock on effects of restoring community independence and values, as a result of focusing people's daily travels to smaller, local circuits. As the other comment notes, limiting air travel should also be part of this strategy.

[@charleswalters5284]

Know where the blind spot in the petrol burning model is? The whole world.

[@bondo6506]

Doomsday Alarmist, with no real answers,.... Life thrives in warmth, 'n life dies in the cold,.... Drill baby drill, build pipelines, it's cold up here,....

[@richardivonen3564]

... The food that you eat doesn't grow in deserts unless those deserts are irrigated. The complexity of the issues that we are currently facing seems to overwhelm your capacity to fully understand the multiplicity of cause and effect sequences that define the problems and the solutions to those problems. If you learned how to study the information that is available to you in a DISCIPLINED MANNER then you may end up with a moment of enlightenment where you will see the truth being unfolded before you. It is said that there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.? It has also been said that "a mind is a terrible thing to waste.". Everyone has the option of diligently seeking the truth or allowing their mind to wallow in ignorance.

[@nicolagianaroli2024]

​@@richardivonen3564a desert turn green if sufficient level of co2 are reached. The higher the level of co2 the stronger the resistance in drought period

[@accessaryman]

when talking about the planet and it climate, why do we focus on one thing, there are 16 or so gases in our atmosphere CO2 is 0.035%of it, un yet we focus solely on this gas to be the end of everything, the human body needs 3 vital gases to exist and grow, (among other things), co2 plays a big part in the process of life, not only humans require this gas the animals, insects, crustations, fish, all plant forms, and yet we want to eliminate co2, with the population slowly growing the land these green energy projects take up, take away arable land to produce food, and areas where trees need to grow, are we that stupid, ?

[@goranjohansson2495]

I switched off when she said co2 is at 490 ppm. If you not even can get the numbers right you are not credible at all.

[@JamesFitzgerald]

We should drill baby drill

[@carlosmoreira8835]

Brilliant. In one comment you're saying there's nothing we can do to revert climate change and that we should just "adapt" and in this one you're saying to keep drilling oil. JFC

[@Mike-or3ry]

Alex Epstein 's "FOSSIL FUTURE" on sale now. The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels. HUMAN FLOURISHING

[@helgeellevset3004]

What nonsense. Is she gonna keep global temperature stable? Her use of references and assumptions are bogus

[@glennmitchell9107]

A basic understanding and commitment to non-leftist economics would make all this drama irrelevant. Every decision is a trade-off. Just have some competent teams run the numbers. Work out the inconsistencies, then start digging.

[@user-jd7bf2sr8v]

Fast talk by EU propaganda agent with a very selective memory.

[@morganp7238]

More of the same propaganda. Greta for the win.

[@robertthompson9455]

More climate BS ?...