They're mixing up climate problems there,
Because they're all mixed.
Mining for minerals doesn't have a massive carbon budget,
Directly true, indirectly doubtful
The problem with mining for ores is the effect such a big scar in the earth, and the impact that has on the water table, not to mention the effects on the fora and flora of the area, and which electrifying the machinery won't have much of an impact on.
Flora does capture CO2, and all those impacts pose limits to how much you can mine and how many batteries you can make, so if you plan to electrify cars without replanning transportation and decreasing travel and number of cars,
then you can't get enough mining to electrify all cars and you get dirty cars emitting CO2. It seems to work at the beginning, but as you deplete resources you get electrification for just a few. And since climate change is serious, those
few just decree the rest can't travel.
I think you need less travel, less commuting, fewer cars, and the few left electric, more public transport and more autarchic economy so that you can better control the externalities.Pity that parties proposing autarchy are generally assholes.
Getting resources from places in which you can't vote about work conditions or environment protection is cheap, but it's not clean at all, so it means you'll die of all that dirt. You'll die later than the resource locals (unless they come kill you) but you'll die,
because after all it's just one planet.
More importantly is the plan to establish a circular economy by establishing effective recycling of depleted batteries.
Yes, I hear lead is much better than lithium in recycling. It's more mature and we have more experience.
The problem with better batteries is not so much that they can't be recycled, but that they're so diverse you need too much labor to dismantle and separate components, you can't just grind and melt or dissolve.
But there's also research on that, so I hope it improves.
I voted for Biden, but I feel like he may not be environmentalist enough. He’s one of those “Environmentalism creates jobs!” types. We need someone who can actually sell economic sacrifice to the American people.
I don't think selling that to voters, or leading the people is a politician job. You may need a poet, a musician, a lot of activists... It's always fiction what changes societies behaviour.
Epic poetry to induce feudalism, travel/discovery novels to impulse colonialism, war films to defend cold war, hollywood romantic films to impose patriarchy and consumism, etc.
Maybe that's outdated and nowadays people just do what their phone tells them, but that's still fiction, with centralized big data, graphs, attention sucking and personalization, but still a big farce, be it text messages or 3D virtual reality.
Politicians tend to follow society, not lead it. The rich lead the politicians who then do what the rich want while telling the people they're doing what the people already wants.
Politicians who tell people what they need to do or what should they want just don't get voted. In fact politicians who tell anything at all don't get voted. To have lots of people agree to something that something must be meaningless.
Yes like "Environmentalism creates jobs". Why do we want jobs ? Having people work just wastes resources. We want life, to get life we need a healthy environment. If we need to work to get that, then lets work,
but selling environmentalism by basically saying it gives us something to do is meaningless. Anything you want to do will create jobs, but that's no reason to do it. Even wars create jobs.
But since politicians know they're talking to people who don't care for politics, they try not to say anything meaningful, so that nobody can really disagree.
So maybe go write a game where the more you waste the worse you fare, write a novel where the tycoon with the big car gets stuck in a traffic jam while the unemployed in a bicycle gets the love of someone honest. Or some such.