New Study: Green-Energy Mining Does Massive Ecological Damage
Mining all of the lithium, cobalt, rare earth minerals, and other elements required for a wind- and solar-powered economy would unleash massive and widespread environmental devastation, according to a newly published study.
The study, authored by Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) senior policy advisor Paul Driessen and published by The Heartland Institute, concludes that climate activists impose more environmental harm than good when they insist on a wind- and solar-powered economy.
“Expanding mining on the scale needed to meet the renewable energy requirements of the Green New Deal and other proposed renewable energy mandates would cause unimaginable harm to the environment, wildlife, and humans,” the study, titled, “How the Green New Deal’s Renewable Energy Mining Would Harm Humans and the Environment,” reports.
Particularly troubling is the “renewable” economy’s reliance on rare earth minerals mined in China, lithium mined in Argentina, Chile, and Tibet, and cobalt mined in the Democratic Republic of Congo (pictured).
The study comprehensively documents the environmental and human health misery imposed by such mining.
For example, “There’s not one step of the rare earth mining process that is not disastrous for the environment,” reports Greenpeace China program director Jamie Choi, according to the study.
Also, the study cites a 2018 study by Harvard University researchers concluding it would require covering one-third of the land in the United States with wind turbines just to meet existing electricity demand.
Transforming all automobiles to electric power would likely push that total closer to one-half of the United States. What would happen to all the wildlife in America if half our country is devoted to wind turbines?
As the study shows, the clear impact of global warming activism is imposing more environmental harm than good.
Read more at Climate Realism
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Tom O
| #
An interesting statement –
“Also, the study cites a 2018 study by Harvard University researchers concluding it would require covering one-third of the land in the United States with wind turbines just to meet existing electricity demand.
Transforming all automobiles to electric power would likely push that total closer to one-half of the United States. What would happen to all the wildlife in America if half our country is devoted to wind turbines?”
The next question would be, how do you remove and bury them while putting the same number back up in 25 years? Then, would there be any space left that would be available for the next generation of wind farms in 25 more years? After that, since there would be no room left for people to live in anyway, you probably wouldn’t have to worry about the next change.
Reply
Andrew Johnson
| #
Not to mention what do you do with all the scrap wind turbines and their blades?
Reply
Boris Badenov
| #
Don’t you mean replacing them in 10 -12 years? A well documented fact that the bird killers don’t make it past 12 years. Just about the same time they are paid for. Green for energy is a farce.
Reply
Joel Walbert
| #
A friend of Mine is a member of the Cult. I’ve explained every hidden un-green aspect of so-called green tech that I have known of over the years. Always a different response, and he never doubts me, but it boils down to so long as its anything but fossil fuels, no matter the cost, its worth it. Even to the point that if the exact people running ‘Big Oil’ began running ‘Big Green’ with the same exact practices and corporate attitude, he is still fine. So long as its not oil.
Reply