The issue is that while mines produce relatively localized environmental damage, climate change will produce globalized damage by ecosystem collapse and sea level rise. The sum total of this damage will be far greater than the marginal increase in mining required for battery production. Shifting, for sure, but the scale of destruction is the real question.
I'm not even convinced that there will be a "marginal increase in mining required for battery production," nor that there will be an associated increase in localized environmental damage.
Lithium mines produce localized environmental damage, _but so does fossil fuel extraction_. Think about environmental damage from mountaintop removal coal mining, fracking, offshore oil spills, etc.
With fossil fuels, you get localized environmental damage, _plus_ climate change.
With lithium, you get localized environmental damage, but you hopefully support a transition to renewables.
No, not at all. In the past year, they attempted to shut down one of last remaining paper mills that is keeping the beleaguered forestry industry alive by ordering the removal of a dam that alteady had had a fish ladder installed at great cost, because it might possibly still impact the spawning of a miniscule subpopulation of salmon.
There's been enormous conflict about simply building a high voltage transmission line across the boondocks of the western mountains to bring cheap green power down from the Quebec Hydro dams.
Scale is a good question. However, it might not matter if the residents (through the state) decide they don't want their local area to be destroyed. For example, climate change may not be as locally damaging as some massive strip mines.
