Green revolution? No thanks!

The great heresy: is the green revolution a huge fake news?
Every year, man extracts 50 billion tons of construction materials, fossil fuels, minerals and metals from the soil and the earth's subsoil. To be clear, a mass equal to that of 140,000 Empire State Buildings.

A devastating environmental impact is associated with this gigantic withdrawal of natural resources.
We all have in mind the images of failed oil tankers dumping thousands of tons of crude oil into the sea. Not everyone knows, however, that one of the most serious environmental disasters of recent decades was caused by a copper mine (the Ok Tedi disaster) or that one of the main causes of forest fires in the Amazon and Africa is precisely the activity extractive.

To ease the anthropogenic (human) pressure on the terrestrial ecosystem, an aggressive group of scientists, communicators, activists and politicians have gradually managed to impose a new development perspective on a large slice of Western public opinion, apparently centered on more rationality of natural resources.
Instead of extracting billions of tons a year of coal, oil and natural gas we will have to learn to exploit the energy of the sun and wind, renewable resources whose exploitation does not damage the ecosystem.

All correct, right?

No, all wrong.

Solar panels, wind turbines, batteries and electric cars are technological devices made of concrete, plastic, steel, titanium, copper, silver, cobalt, lithium and dozens of other minerals.

A commentary published in Nature Geoscience a few years ago estimates that, just to convert one seventh of the world's primary energy production (25,000 TWh), it may be necessary to triple the production of concrete (from just over 10 billion tons per year to almost 35), quintuple that of steel (from just under two billion tons to just over 10) and multiply that of glass, aluminum and copper by several times. And we are talking about converting not even 15% of the world's energy needs to renewable energy.

Not only that, a technical aspect must also be considered: the "gold vein" exists only in comics. To give an example, on average in a copper deposit, copper is present with a concentration of about 0.6%. This means that more than 150 tons of rock must be crumbled to extract a ton of metal. The great South African gold mines grind 5/6,000 tons of rock a day to extract less than 20 tons of precious metal a year.

But that's not enough. How is aluminum produced? Well, with a process that consumes a lot of energy: to produce a ton of aluminum, in fact, about 30,000 kWh (between thermal and electrical energy) are required. And the steel industry is also an energy-intensive activity: the production of a ton of steel requires between 800 and 5,000 kWh equivalent.

So, just to produce the steel needed to build enough wind panels and turbines to generate 25,000 TWh of renewable energy a year, we might need an extra 7,000/40,000 TWh a year of fossil energy.

And that's not all. In fact, the known reserves of about a dozen materials at the base of the “green revolution” would be enough to cover only a few years of consumption in a 100% renewable scenario. The European Union, for example, predicts that, in order to hit the ambitious targets of the Green Deal, it will need far more rare earths than are currently mined worldwide.

It should be noted that these estimates are not the backbiting of a doubt trader paid for by Big Oil. The UN, the European Commission, the World Bank have produced extensive reports in which they arrive at similar conclusions: a lot of more natural resources will be needed. On the other hand, the studies that investigate the subject are numerous, and published in the most authoritative scientific journals in the world: PNAS, Science, Nature.

Yet, despite the vast panorama of popular magazines that closely follow the "green revolution", from Le Scienze to the many digital newspapers, curiously in Italian there is not a single in-depth study on this aspect, so enormous and so contradictory.

The perception, quite widespread to tell the truth, is that those who have been doing scientific dissemination for some time have arrogated to themselves the right to choose what to disclose and what not. In short, he has decided to do politics instead of information.

Otherwise, it is not possible to explain how it is possible to lash out almost daily against the growth paradigm and, at the same time, support a “green revolution” that imagines to double - at least - the withdrawal of natural resources in a few decades.

Or how is it possible that, while indignant about environmental disasters in the Amazon or Australia, one plans to dig 170 km deep pits to search for the metals necessary to meet the needs of the wind and solar industry (a prospect that for the moment , among other things, it is pure science fiction, since we talk about operating at temperatures and pressures unmanageable with current technology).

On Econopoly we had already dealt with this aspect and we had done it well before the Covid-19 pandemic highlighted that science is not at all monolithic as some media portray it (On the crazy climate listen to the scientists. Ok, but which ones? ).

Ultimately, behind what we call the "green revolution" actually hides a program to rapidly and drastically increase the withdrawal of natural resources. With all that this entails for the health of ecosystems and even human beings: to extract billions more tons of gravel, clay, iron, bauxite and copper, we will destroy other pristine forests, we will further pollute air and water, we will push dozens towards extinction. of thousands of animal species.

So, in essence, a very different scenario from what is sold to public opinion.

This is not a dystopia, a distant future shrouded in the mists of probably and perhaps: the European Commission has just announced a funding program for the European mining industry and the price of copper soars (+ 40% from March to today ), driven precisely by the demand linked to Chinese electric cars and the European Green Deal. We are already in it, we are already devastating hundreds of ecosystems in search of lithium and cobalt for batteries or rare earths for wind turbine magnets.

Driven by emotionality, we feed an epochal bubble.

Are there any other solutions? The temperature continues to rise, we can not ignore it.

Of course there are other solutions.

And, again, we come up against the rubber wall of disclosure: public opinion has been convinced that there are no other paths but in reality this is not the case.

Let's take an exemplary case: Direct Atmosphere Capture (DAC).

Direct capture is a technology with a pioneering appearance, but in reality very simple, which allows you to separate carbon dioxide from the air. Nothing science fiction, there are dozens of perfectly functioning pilot plants all over the world.

Generally, this technology is ridiculed as being very expensive: the scientifically certified results stand at a minimum cost of 94 dollars for each ton of carbon dioxide captured from the atmosphere. Objectively, a considerable cost given that we emit almost 37 billion tons a year.

Anyone who points out that we are talking about data relating to a very small pilot plant and that in a large plant the costs could already be much lower now, is accused of magical thinking, although the potential for economies of scale is known. and easily measurable.

Furthermore, direct capture is expected to compete with renewables without benefiting from public incentives, while renewables are generously subsidized.

Well, the curious thing is that the current estimates on the costs of the "green revolution" are around 5,000 / 6,000 billion a year, while capturing carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere at 94 dollars a ton (let's repeat it: an unreasonable cost inflated by imagining a large-scale use) would cost "only" 3 trillion a year! It is really difficult to understand how direct capture can be defined as expensive, while supporting a solution that costs twice as much.

Not to forget, then, as Nature points out, that direct capture has a fundamental advantage over all other solutions: it minimizes uncertainty, attacks the core of the problem. On the one hand we are talking about reducing the increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere through complex cultural and social mechanisms, on the other hand we are talking about removing it directly with a technology.

Even more curious is the case of reforestation and regenerative agriculture (not to be confused with organic or biodynamic agriculture: we are talking about intensive agriculture with higher yields than the traditional chemical one), two perfectly eco-sustainable options that would allow us to quickly tackle the problem. of climate change, with a limited expenditure of resources and attractive socio-economic consequences. Yet, initiatives in this direction are continually under fire from scientists, disseminators and green activists. A paradox. The accusation is unsettling: the adoption of these solutions could slow down the transition to renewable energy.

But is the ultimate goal of this gigantic effort to secure the planet from climate uncertainty or to get the renewable energy lobby to make a lot of money? It has now become very difficult to understand.

Elon Musk is undoubtedly a brilliant entrepreneur, a genius of our time, but this does not mean that we must feel obliged to pay him 1,000 / 2,000 billion dollars a year, generously sprinkled with public funds that we take away from health or education, just for give two examples.

It would be nice to be able to comment, as indeed it is very fashionable in these times, saying that it is increasingly important to study, get informed, investigate, because our future is at stake. But if upstream there is a filter that selects which information should reach the media and which not, this becomes just another exercise in haughty and inconclusive style.

"It should be noted that the IPCC in its fifth report, consistent with all previous assessment reports, does not explicitly address the question of the material implications of climate development scenarios" (World Bank).