Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Materie Prime, Problemi militari, Problemia Energetici

Biden. La via per la Elettricità passa per le inquinanti Miniere.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2021-03-07.

2021-03-04__ Biden Elettricità e Miniere 001

«To go electric, America needs more mines. Can it build them?»

«Last September, in the arid hills of northern Nevada, a cluster of flowers found nowhere else on earth died mysteriously overnight»

«Conservationists were quick to suspect Ioneer Ltd, an Australian firm that wants to mine the lithium that lies beneath the flowers for use in electric vehicle (EV) batteries»

«The clash of environmental priorities underpinning the battle over Tiehm’s buckwheat – conservation vs. green energy – is a microcosm of a much larger political quandary for the new administration of President Joe Biden, who has made big promises to environmentalists as well as labor groups and others who stand to benefit by boosting mining»

«But that aim could conflict with his promises to hasten the electrification of vehicles and to reduce the country’s dependence on China for rare earths, lithium and other minerals needed for EV batteries»

«The administration has called the reliance on China a national security threat»

«You can’t have green energy without mining, …. That’s just the reality»

«Rare earth magnets are used to make a range of consumer electronics as well as precision-guided missiles and other weapons»

«Demand for metals used in EV batteries is expected to rise sharply as automakers including Tesla Inc, BMW and General Motors plan major expansions of EV production»

«Biden has promised to convert the entire U.S. government fleet – about 640,000 vehicles – to EVs. That plan alone could require a 12-fold increase in U.S. lithium production by 2030»

«In Nevada, the Department of Wildlife worries that the lithium mines planned by Lithium Americas and others would harm trout, deer and pronghorn habitats»

«The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said that thirsty squirrels may have gnawed the roots of more than 17,000 flowers for water amid a drought in the state»

* * * * * * *

Terre Rare. Chi le controlla, controlla il mondo. Piaccia o meno, è la Cina.

Cina. Export terre rare -16%. Industrie militari i crisi.

U.S. military firms likely to face China rare earth restrictions: Global Times

Usa, Cina e Terre Rare. Ora interviene anche il Pentagono.

Terre rare. Novità rilevanti per il disprosio.

Guerra fredda sino-americana. Cina medita restrizioni alla esportazione delle terre rare.

*

Cina. Sta investendo massicciamente in Bolivia e Columbia. La guerra del Litio.

Il problema sembrerebbe non avere al momento soluzioni degne di nota.

Gli Stati Uniti non hanno miniere di litio e di terre rare in grado di soddisfare le loro esigenze militari e civili.

Di conseguenza sono obbligati a dipendere dall’approvvigionamento dall’estero.

Gli ecologisti mettono poi la ciliegina sulla torta.

Ma questa dipendenza non si estingue nel pagare un prezzo più o meno alto. Il disporre di litio e terre rare è anche, e soprattutto, una potente leva politica, con la quale gli Stati Uniti non possono scherzare più di tanto.

*


To go electric, America needs more mines. Can it build them?

Last September, in the arid hills of northern Nevada, a cluster of flowers found nowhere else on earth died mysteriously overnight.

Conservationists were quick to suspect ioneer Ltd, an Australian firm that wants to mine the lithium that lies beneath the flowers for use in electric vehicle (EV) batteries.

One conservation group alleged in a lawsuit that the flowers, known as Tiehm’s buckwheat, were “dug up and destroyed.” The rare plant posed a problem for ioneer because U.S. officials may soon add it to the Endangered Species List, which could scuttle the mining project.

Ioneer denies harming the flowers. Their cause of death remains hotly debated – as does the fate of the lithium mine.

The clash of environmental priorities underpinning the battle over Tiehm’s buckwheat – conservation vs. green energy – is a microcosm of a much larger political quandary for the new administration of President Joe Biden, who has made big promises to environmentalists as well as labor groups and others who stand to benefit by boosting mining.

To please conservationists, Biden has vowed to set aside at least 30% of U.S. federal land and coastal areas for conservation, triple current levels.

But that aim could conflict with his promises to hasten the electrification of vehicles and to reduce the country’s dependence on China for rare earths, lithium and other minerals needed for EV batteries. The administration has called the reliance on China a national security threat.

The administration will be forced into hard choices that anger one constituency or another.

“You can’t have green energy without mining,” Mark Senti, chief executive of Florida-based rare earth magnet company Advanced Magnet Lab Inc. “That’s just the reality.”

Rare earth magnets are used to make a range of consumer electronics as well as precision-guided missiles and other weapons.

Two sources familiar with White House deliberations on domestic mining told Reuters that Biden plans to allow mines that produce EV metals to be developed under existing environmental standards, rather than face a tightened process that would apply to mining for other materials, such as coal.

Biden is open to allowing more mines on federal land, the sources said, but won’t give the industry carte blanche to dig everywhere. That will likely mean approval of mines for rare earths and lithium, though certain copper projects – including a proposed Arizona copper mine from Rio Tinto Plc opposed by Native Americans – are likely to face extra scrutiny, the sources said.

The White House declined to comment for this article.

                         DIGGING NEEDED

Demand for metals used in EV batteries is expected to rise sharply as automakers including Tesla Inc, BMW and General Motors plan major expansions of EV production. California, the biggest U.S. vehicle market, aims to entirely ban fossil fuel-powered engines by 2035.

Biden has promised to convert the entire U.S. government fleet – about 640,000 vehicles – to EVs. That plan alone could require a 12-fold increase in U.S. lithium production by 2030, according to Benchmark Minerals Intelligence, as well as increases in output of domestic copper, nickel and cobalt. Federal land is teeming with many of these EV metals, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

“There is no way there’s enough raw materials being produced right now to start replacing millions of gasoline-powered motor vehicles with EVs,” said Lewis Black, CEO of Almonty Industries Inc, which mines the hardening metal tungsten in Portugal and South Korea.

Despite that shortage, proposed U.S. mines from Rio Tinto Ltd, BHP Group Ltd, Antofagasta Plc, Lithium Americas Corp, Glencore Plc and others are drawing stiff opposition from conservation groups. The projects would supply enough lithium for more than 5 million EV batteries and enough copper for more than 10,000 EVs each year.

Mining companies insist that federal lands can still be protected while the U.S. boosts output of minerals needed to accelerate the EV transition.

Former U.S. President Donald Trump and the mining industry “pushed the narrative that we need to mine everywhere and undercut environmental safeguards in order to build more batteries,” said Drew McConville of The Wilderness Society, a conservation group. “We have confidence that the Biden administration is going to see through that false narrative.”

Earthworks and other environmental groups are now lobbying automakers to only buy metals from mines deemed environmentally friendly by the Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance (IRMA), a nonprofit group. BMW, Ford Motor Co and Daimler have agreed to abide by IRMA guidelines, and other automakers may follow suit.

                         PROJECTS AT RISK

Biden has not weighed in on two controversial copper mine projects in Minnesota’s environmentally-sensitive Boundary Waters region from PolyMet Mining Corp and Antofagasta Plc’s Twin Metals subsidiary.

Tom Vilsack – the secretary of agriculture, the department that oversees the Boundary Waters – has in the past opposed the Twin Metals project, arguing that it threatened wilderness and marshlands.

Deb Haaland, the new secretary of interior, the department that controls most federal land, previously voted for a bill that would have banned copper sulfide mining in northern Minnesota. That bill, authored by U.S. Representative Betty McCollum, a Minnesota Democrat, will be reintroduced this month, her aides told Reuters.

Conservationists nonetheless remain concerned that the appeal of copper for EVs and other renewable energy devices may help the mines ultimately get approved.

“If these were coal mines, I’d feel much more comfortable knowing they wouldn’t be approved,” said Pete Marshall of Friends of the Boundary Waters.

                         WORRIES ABOUT WILDLIFE, SACRED GROUNDS, FLOWERS

In Arizona, Biden promised Native Americans – whose votes helped him win the battleground state – that they would have a “seat at the table” if he defeated Trump. Many Native Americans are worried that Rio Tinto’s Resolution proposed copper mine would destroy sacred sites considered home to religious deities.

On Monday afternoon, Biden administration officials blocked a land swap Rio needs to build the mine. Trump officials had previously approved that land swap.

Other controversial projects include Idaho’s Stibnite proposed mine, from John Paulson-backed Perpetua Resources Corp, which is under fresh scrutiny by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency staff over fears it would pollute Native American fishing grounds. The mine would produce gold and antimony, used to make alloys for EV batteries.

In Nevada, the Department of Wildlife worries that the lithium mines planned by Lithium Americas and others would harm trout, deer and pronghorn habitats. The Lithium Americas mine received federal approval last month, but ranchers have sued the U.S. government to reverse that decision.

“Renewable energy and electric cars aren’t green if they destroy an important habitat and drive wildlife extinct,” said Kelly Fuller, of the Western Watersheds Project, which opposes the Lithium Americas project.

In Nevada, the death of the Tiehm’s buckwheat flowers at ioneer’s proposed mine site remains a point of contention. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said that thirsty squirrels may have gnawed the roots of more than 17,000 flowers for water amid a drought in the state.

The Center for Biological Diversity, which opposes the mine, said there was evidence that humans destroyed the flowers. “The targeted nature of the damage, combined with the lack of feces, pawprints, hoofprints, or other evidence of wildlife suggest human involvement,” the group said in a court filing.

The Fish and Wildlife Service is now set to rule this summer on whether the flower is an endangered species – a designation that would prevent development on much of the land ioneer is trying to mine.

Ioneer has hired scientists to move the flowers to a new site, though it’s unclear if that process will succeed. “We can extract this lithium and also save this flower,” said James Calaway, ioneer’s chairman.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Stati Uniti

Usa. Corte Suprema sentenzia contro Sierra Club. Grande scorno degli ambientalisti.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2021-03-06.

2021-03-05__ Suprema Corte 001

«Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett on Thursday authored her first ruling since joining the U.S. Supreme Court in October as the court handed a defeat to an environmental group seeking access to government documents»

«In the 7-2 ruling, the justices sided with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, thwarting an effort by the Sierra Club to obtain documents concerning a regulation finalized in 2014 relating to power plants. Barrett and the court’s other five conservative justices were joined by liberal Justice Elena Kagan in the majority, with liberals Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor in dissent»

«The court sided 7-2 against the Sierra Club, which filed a FOIA request for “draft biological opinions” that environmental officials produced in 2013. Those opinions analyzed potential threats to endangered species from a proposed rule on underwater structures used to cool down industrial equipment»

«The court sent the case, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service v. Sierra Club, back to a federal district court for further analysis of whether any parts of the documents can be separated from the privileged material and thus disclosed under FOIA»

* * * * * * *

La sentenza N 19-547, nel rimandare il tutto alla Corte di Appello del Nono Circuito, è corredata da un voluminoso Certiorari, ossia dalle istruzioni giuridiche di come si debbano valutare questo tipo di cause.

Sono una doccia gelida per i giudici del Nono Circuito, sia per i contenuti rimarcati, sia per il fatto che la sentenza è stata presa sette contro due.

Quando i giudici sentenziano sulla base delle loro ideologie, invece che secondo costituzione e diritto, producono delle brutture giuridiche che nulla hanno a che fare con la giustizia.

*


Scotus Blog. In Barrett’s first majority opinion, court sides with government in FOIA dispute

The federal government does not have to fully disclose certain draft environmental documents under the Freedom of Information Act, even if those documents reflect an agency’s final view about a policy proposal that it later abandons, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the opinion, her first majority opinion since joining the court in October.

The court sided 7-2 against the Sierra Club, which filed a FOIA request for “draft biological opinions” that environmental officials produced in 2013. Those opinions analyzed potential threats to endangered species from a proposed rule on underwater structures used to cool down industrial equipment.

The government argued that the documents were covered by FOIA’s “deliberative process” privilege, which allows the government to withhold documents that are generated as part of an agency’s process of formulating a new policy. Barrett agreed, rejecting the Sierra Club’s argument that the documents embodied a final policy conclusion and therefore should not be covered by the privilege.

Although the documents were the “last word” about the proposed rule, they do not represent final agency decision-making because the Environmental Protection Agency reconsidered the proposed rule and never issued it, Barrett wrote.

The draft opinions, Barrett wrote, “were not last because they were final; they were last because they died on the vine.”

The court sent the case, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service v. Sierra Club, back to a federal district court for further analysis of whether any parts of the documents can be separated from the privileged material and thus disclosed under FOIA.

Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, dissented.

*


Barrett authors first U.S. Supreme Court ruling, a loss for environmentalists

Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett on Thursday authored her first ruling since joining the U.S. Supreme Court in October as the court handed a defeat to an environmental group seeking access to government documents.

In the 7-2 ruling, the justices sided with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, thwarting an effort by the Sierra Club to obtain documents concerning a regulation finalized in 2014 relating to power plants. Barrett and the court’s other five conservative justices were joined by liberal Justice Elena Kagan in the majority, with liberals Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor in dissent.

The Senate approved Barrett for a lifetime job on the top U.S. judicial body on Oct. 26 after an accelerated confirmation process that unfolded in the weeks before the Nov. 3 presidential election. She is one of three justices appointed by Republican former President Donald Trump and she replaced liberal Justice Ruther Bader Ginsburg, who died on Sept. 18.

Trump touted his appointment of Barrett in campaign rallies ahead of the election, which he lost to Democratic President Joe Biden. Her swift confirmation by the Senate, which at the time was controlled by Trump’s fellow Republicans but is now led by the Democrats, moved the court further to the right and prevented Biden from replacing Ginsburg with a liberal successor. It marked the closest to a presidential election that a Supreme Court justice had won Senate confirmation.

The Sierra Club ruling limits the scope of U.S. agency documents that would be subject to a federal law called the Freedom of Information Act, which lets people request certain government materials.

The group wanted access to internal documents concerning the Fish and Wildlife Service’s conclusion that a proposed environmental regulation for cooling water intake structures that are used by power plants and other industrial facilities would not adversely affect endangered species, including fish, turtles and shellfish.

In 2013, the agency initially found that the regulation would put the species in jeopardy but its final recommendation to the Environmental Protection Agency in 2014 reached the opposite conclusion.

Writing for the court, Barrett said the 2013 draft documents were protected from disclosure because “they reflect a preliminary view – not a final decision – about the likely effect of the EPA’s proposed rule on endangered species.”

A federal judge in California ruled in 2017 that 11 documents had to be disclosed. Trump’s administration appealed and the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2018 ruled partly for the government but still found that nine documents had to be released.

The case was argued on Nov. 2, the day before Election Day. It marked first Barrett’s arguments as a justice. She previously served on a lower federal appeals court and as a legal scholar at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana.

So far, Barrett’s biggest impact on the court came when she provided the decisive vote in favor of religious entities challenging COVID-19 restrictions in New York.