I’m providing a link below to an article from the Sierra Nevada Ally refuting the recent arguments made by Glenn Miller, who I think by now we all know, which supports the Thacker Pass project due to its net positive contribution to global warming. This is but one of a series of recent articles, mostly from this same source, attacking Miller’s arguments, just as okiedo predicted. 

If you’ll allow me, I’d like to make a few observations or general comments around this topic, which might be a bit tangential to LAC specifically, except for the fact that the Thacker Pass project seems to have become ground zero for this ideological perspective on climate change, and where the world wide adoption of EVs fits into the equation.

 You need not read beyond the first two paragraphs of the article to get the jist of this group’s ideology; the threat to biodiversity resulting from mining the materials needed for broad EV adoption outweighs the benefits of reduced emissions from EVs. Full disclosure, I am Canadian and admittedly probably more left leaning than the average American, but I see this type of extreme left ideology with respect to the climate change debate more than a little problematic.

They are ultimately arguing one of two broad themes; either no change happens, or the only acceptable change that should happen is an absolute revolution away from any carbon sourced energy (with everything that that entails, i.e ultimately living in caves). They seem to totally ignore reality, which is that any positive change happens incrementally, as an evolution not a revolution. 

I evoke Pavel here and his reasoned, although not supported by me personally, opinion that large scale EV adoption is not net positive because of the carbon required to support the adoption. The flaw I see in this argument is that of time. I agree that there will be meaningful challenges in the near and medium terms during the transition, but I have to believe that 50 years from now the world will be a better place with large scale EV adoption (and the wider issue of energy storage in batteries generally) than if we didn’t aggressively pursue this initiative. 

The environmentalists that argue that infinitesimally altering (not destroying), biodiversity in projects like Thacker Pass is net negative to climate change are, in my opinion, the worst kind of ideologues; the kind that argue that if something isn’t a perfect, immediate solution, then it is worse than the present. 

Any follow-on comments on this topic might be better placed on the Off Topic forum, but I just felt that I needed to vent a bit about this equivalency argument presented by these particular environmentalists. I believe that Thacker Pass is a net positive for the world, now and into the future. 

HABITAT DESTRUCTION FOR LITHIUM IS CLIMATE AND EXTINCTION CRISIS DENIALISM