Here is another interesting one. A "sea" that was filled by accident in California and is now dead holds one third of the global supply of lithium.
Salton Sea is Key to California's EV Future
Salton Sea is Key to California's EV Future
Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps about as much as cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline will have, which is to say "so close to zero it can't be measured". Changeover to EVs with lithium batteries and mega scale power storage for solar and wind power is nice to imagine but it's tough for even the most optimistic of objective observers to estimate how, or even if, whatever warming trends there are may be affected by the changeover.teledork said:So, will all this lithium mining have any effect on climate change?
The developing "greenhouse effect" was hitting the press from within academia circles by the late 1960s and was in full swing by the time my particular group of doe-eyed hippies sought to save the Earth with our geology degrees in the mid 1970s. Problem was (and is?) that none of the dire predictions concerning climate and sea level changes came true. Almost to a man (and woman), we all got into oil and gas or mining since nothing of substance was going on in environmental. The ringing of the alarm bells has persisted since that time as has the absence of the predicted circumstances. So when "environmental scientists" speak of "10 to 12 years before it's too late", my memory cells remind me I've seen this movie on a continuous loop for the last 50 years. I don't claim to know what's going to happen, but I've got a strong intuitive feel for what won't happen.craig333 said:I'd be curious to see what he thinks about climate change.
Think it was Dodge something or something Dodge. Marvin Dodge. I knew it would come to me eventually.
Agreed!rando said:I feel like there is some pretty bad stereotyping and hand waving going on here. Dismissing an entire field of science and a massive body of research based on some hand waving arguments does not seem particularly scientific. For the old geologists in the group, I would suggest you consult your own professional societies (the GSA or more broadly the AGU) to learn what the current thinking in your field is. Even the API and the Society of Exploration Geologists have position statements that align with the scientific consensus.
As to belittling environmental scientists, it helps to realize that environmental science is a broad field and is an applied science, not a basic science. The fundamental research into climate is primarily carried out by PhD atmospheric scientists, hydrologists and geophysicists at government agencies (NOAA, NASA, USGS etc) and universities. Environmental science builds on this basic research (as well as toxicology, hydrology etc) to come up with strategies, practices and policies for mitigation, adaptation and remediation for environmental impacts. As such, environmental scientists have a larger breadth of knowledge and need to not only have a understanding of the science, but also the politics and policy, the societal impacts, the economic impacts etc. At my institution, an undergraduate ES degree requires 60 credits in physical science, economics and social sciences in order to graduate.
There is also a large overlap between ES and Environmental Engineering, with the Environmental Engineering folks having a focus on the more technical details of assessment and remediation, while the ES folks are looking at the broader picture.
Full disclosure, this is coming from a practicing atmospheric scientist and recovering engineer.
I'm entirely grateful for your boots-on-the ground perspective! My view of the matter is restricted to undergraduate ES programs only, so your quote concerning 60 hours of physical science, econ, and social science dovetails with what I've read of some Eastern schools' curriculum, one of which requires only 12 hours of physical science and plus 15 hours of social science. With but 12 hours (4 three hour courses?) spread out among chemistry, physics, biology, and geology, my own perspective is that the graduate has little claim to being a scientist, no more than my own claim to be a chemist because I passed 2 semesters of chem, a physicist because of 2 semesters of physics, or an economist because I earned a minor (15 hours) in economics. I'm none of those in that I am a geologist, having earned 29 semester hours in geology courses in addition to the chemistry, physics, biology, and general college social science credits. MS and PhD graduates are a whole different group, again IMHO.rando said:Full disclosure, this is coming from a practicing atmospheric scientist and recovering engineer.