I was reading through some articles on Stock Gumshoe today when I came upon something I had not considered when I proposed writing some posts on how really clean "green" technology is. You see, I had been thinking of writing about electric and hybrid cars for some time, and planned to base my post, at least initially, on some of the rather sarcastic remarks made on the episode of Top Gear I mentioned several months ago ("Hurrah for Top Gear"). And, at some point, I may still do that. But, while reading about some up and coming stocks in the rare earth element mining and processing sector, I came upon something that made me wonder how much thought "green" technology advocates put into their "green" solutions.

What I found interesting in these articles was the statement that rare earth elements, essential for any number of "green" technologies, such as electric and hybrid cars, electric generators, wind turbines, most electric motors and so on, are almost entirely monopolized by China. There are some firms in Australia that seem close to going into production, and a few firms in very early stages of mining in Greenland and Canada, and one mine in California which is projected to start producing in a few years, but, for the most part, China controls the market of rare earth elements.

And that brings up an interesting point. The mining and processing of these minerals is hardly "green" under the best circumstances. Considering how horrifying the "green" crowd finds drilling for oil in a frozen arctic waste, I am amazed they are willing to accept "green" technologies using rare earth elements, but then again, perhaps it is because "Big Oil" isn't involved, so they overlook the pollution. However, if China is doing the mining, that makes the situation even worse. Has anyone ever heard of "communist environmentalism", and I don't mean American environmentalists. Communist nations have been notorious for their disregard for environmental niceties, not even taking the minimal steps to protect workers that are common in even the most slipshod enterprises in a capitalist economy. They simply do not care if they poison not only the environment, but the workers themselves.

So, considering that one of the essential components of much of the "clean" electric economy the greens are pushing comes from mines in China, it seems there is a pretty heavily polluting element right at the foundation of the "green" economy. And that ignores the fact that "clean" electricity comes from "dirty" coal, the many other polluting elements that going into most "green" products and so on.

I hope to write more on this topic soon, go into more detail concerning the many hidden source of pollution in "green" technology, and so on. For now, I think I will limit myself, for now, to pointing out that at least one essential element is a whole lot less "green" than the environmentalists would like us to believe.

POSTSCRIPT

I realize some who fear China will see this as a potential means for China to inconvenience the west, or even engage in economic warfare. And, to a degree, it is. But for those protectionists who would argue that this shows why we need protectionist laws, because the "free market" makes such situations possible, I would make two counter arguments. First, it was environmental laws which made it difficult to mine in otherwise fruitful areas in the west, so it is not the free market so much as government interventionism. Second, even if the free market did do this, I think any Chinese efforts would end up teaching China what the rubber monopoly int he early 20th century learned. if you try to squeeze buyers, they will learn to recycle, reduce consumption, find substitutes, and find alternate sources. It would be uncomfortable for a while, but a Chinese boycott would likely cause a revival of Indian and Brazilian industries (provided the governments allow it), an increase in South African output, or the opening of mines in the US and Canada, as well as spurring the creation of a stronger recycling and reuse effort. Our environmental laws may impede it to some degree, but in the end, it would cost China a fortune to cause only minor inconveniences.

But that is not my topic here, and I have argued it elsewhere, and likely will again.

POSTSCRIPT II

By the way, I do not mean to imply there is no reason to fear China. I have mnay, many concerns about China. I just believe some of the fears about economic warfare, often advanced to justify protectionist measures, are misplaced. The Chinese purchase of US debt, for example, may, in the end, be beneficial, as, should China ever actually attempt economic warfare, we could then repudiate that debt, having two beneficial effects, reducing our debt load, and preventing us from borrowing more.That second point makes me wish China would buy more debt and try some of the moves protectionists fear. Being unable to borrow would do a world of good for the nation. But, that realization is precisely why China will never engage in the more dramatic acts about which some worry. They know their debt could become worthless overnight, and so they use mroe subtle means to pressure us. And, while that is a danger, it is less dangerous than some claim. But, again, that is not my topic here. Both this topic and the protectionist one need to be addressed in their own posts.