drewdarko

You:

“If you ignore the fact that spodumene isn’t lithium…

and the fact that children aren’t mining it…

and the fact that it isn’t happening enough to be relevant to the conversation…

Then I’m totally right!”

https://sh.itjust.works/pictrs/image/92bfcdec-de10-4581-bfc1-7d136e3ae9ca.webp

You inserted yourself into a conversation about how “EVs are bad because children have to mine lithium to make them”.

You’re trying to change the subject to ‘look I found this rare method of mining something that is not lithium, it doesn’t matter that it is rare in the context of the manufacturing of all EVs’.

That is like saying ‘I don’t need to work for a living because look at this rare example of someone winning the lottery’.

Context matters.

Spodumene is not lithium.

Your rare example of mining some thing that is not lithium isn’t relevant in a discussion about children mining lithium for EVs.

You’re trying to argue semantics in bad faith.

Also, “Environmental burden” and “eco friendly” are generic buzzwords used to lump other environmental issues like micro plastics or habitat destruction in with the reduction of green house gases.

I wonder how the math would work out when it is strictly about reduction of greenhouse gases and factors unrelated to our dependency on fossil fuels are not skewing the results.

I wonder how many words you “skipped” while you “researched” the subject. 🤔

More like saying “EVs are bad because lithium is mined by children”.

Then when it is proven that it is not mined, let alone by children, you linking to an article of some rare method of mining spodumene that isn’t done by children and you pretending that is what the discussion is about.

You didn’t prove anything false. You proved that spodumene is mined and spodumene isn’t lithium. Just like iron mined isn’t steel.

Also you’re trying to ignore the context, which is that ‘EVs bad cause children are forced to mine lithium’. Which proves you’re not arguing in good faith.

Again, cobalt isn’t needed to make batteries and there are many other battery chemistries that can be used in EVs. If that is really a concern of yours then you would be arguing for EV manufacturers to use a different battery chemistry. Which they are already transitioning to.

But you aren’t arguing for manufacturers to change battery chemistry. You’re cherry picking information to argue that EVs are the same as ICEs vehicles. Which makes your intentions obvious.

You argue against EVs then claim to want to end car dependency. So you want everyone riding busses and trains run on diesel?

Climate change is real and we need to end our dependency on fossil fuels to prevent the extinction of our species and EVs are a required step in doing that.

Theres 4 links that I see. I commented on the first 3 then the 4th.

If that went unnoticed by you then how is anyone supposed to trust your research on the subject?

Not weird at all. They are mining an ore called spodumene then using a new method to refine it into lithium. They aren’t harvesting raw lithium like it is done everywhere else in the world.

Also, nothing about children doing the work.

Nice try moving the goalpost though.

Your first three articles are about children mining COBALT in Africa. Not mining lithium like I said.

Cobalt is not required for making EVs. It is just an ingredient in one of the many different battery types.

Your 4th link is about using child labor in China to build batteries. Not mine material.

Conclusion: you either didn’t read the articles or you are trying to move the goalpost.

This is an obvious bad faith argument.

“Let’s keep burning fossil fuels as we go extinct from climate change cause I’m worried about the 0.00001% micro plastics that MIGHT be shed from an EV”

Lithium isn’t mined it is gathered by pumping water into salt flats so the lithium rises to the surface and it isn’t done by children. You’re repeating misinformation.

There is an environmental cost for absolutely anything we make. Do you suggest we stop making anything and everything?

Electric cars are the more environmentally sound choice. They are a required first step to ending our dependence on fossil fuels. Without them we cannot end our dependency.

25 years ago but ya

“Both sides are the same!”

The article is an opinion piece that is intentionally leaving out what topics they claim are not being debated.

At a time when science has been politicized, it is safe to say these topics are not up for debate. Reality isn’t up for debate. Especially when it is evidence vs opinion.

I smoked for 23 years technically. I was mostly vaping the last 9 years of that and used vaping to lower my nicotine gradually. When I got to the point I was vaping without nicotine it still took a while to finally quit, but I finally did at the beginning of 2020.

Now I hate the smell and don’t crave them at all. I wish I would’ve done it sooner.

Remember that you don’t actually want it. It’s just a chemical your body is addicted to.

Then only rich people would have them

Step 1: reduce speed limit
Step 2: always have speed trap in place
Step 3: profit

How do you reasonably surmise if someone is being falsely charged? I don’t know what role Scientology plays in this. What brings them up?

There are also countless cases of innocent people being convicted of crimes they didn’t commit. I’m not saying that happened here but it does happen.