xigma

Polluting the environment is damaging someone's property (private or state), for which they will eventually demand restitution. It's part of market forces.

Conversely, a certain amount of pollution/environmental destruction is a price people are willing to pay.

There's a big difference between 3% cobalt and no cobalt. Cobalt is important for safety, skimping on it to save some money is a big risk.

I'm not saying it won't happen, just that I wouldn't put money on it.

This is also exactly what is holding back synthetic fuels from becoming profitable.

Fossil fuels will eventually lose out over synthetic fuels, but not until prices rise substantially.

To the point, the prices are so damn low that only by the worst production methods is extraction even economically feasible. Higher prices will lead to production in less reckless environments, which is a good thing.

Don't put your money on that.

Yeah... but that's kinda missing something. Can't we put it into a vacuum tube instead, preferably underground?

>> Building more mines can only happen if the resources exist to mine.

The resources do exist to mine. Only a tiny fraction of rare earth minerals are actually being mined, because it's not economical in most places.

The headline is made to sound like: "Oh no, we are running out of cobalt!"

Yeah, not really. Just like with "oil reserves", there's a common misconception that we'll "run out" when they are depleted. However, "reserves" are just those resources that can be extracted economically at today's prices. When demand increases, prices rise and reserves "magically" increase.

That's exactly what will happen here. "Rare-earth materials" aren't actually rare in the sense that precious metals are rare. They're just uncommon compared to other minerals. If prices rise, eventually China will decide to increase exports and other countries that aren't literally warzones (like the DRC) will chime in.

So, we have ten years until those batteries will become somewhat more expensive, making research into alternatives more promising. There is no urgency here.

Then of course there's the questionable idea that electric motors will replace combustion engines because we're "running out of oil", which is why we supposedly need all these batteries in the first place. My bet is that synthetic fuels will become profitable far earlier.

Lightbulbs that last longer can't burn as bright, will use more electricity and do cost more. Nothing stops any company from creating long-lasting lightbulbs and they do in fact exist, but the consumer demand for them isn't necessarily higher because of it.

>> How many iPhones have you bought?

Three. Got a 6S right now, still running well and I'm not looking to upgrade. If I cared about it becoming obsolete, I could get a Shift phone instead.

The reality is that most consumers don't mind swapping phones on a regular basis, they want to go with the technological progress. On the other hand, smartphones aren't getting that much better anymore and consumers are delaying upgrades. If they truly valued long-lasting phones with replaceable parts, those phones would be successful. They're not, they are a small niche.

It has always mattered. Illegality drives up risk, businesses seek to minimize risk.

The flip side is that if something is illegal but the perceived risk of being caught is lower than the perceived gain, the laws are likely to be broken. That's why fines to businesses tend to be quite steep.

Of course in this case, there was no risk, as cartels were legal at the time.

It was legal at the time.