Not to understate the terrible conditions of "Artisanal" mines, but the Cobalt Institute says "Due to market surplus, ASM [Artisinal and Small Mine] production has reached a record low, with ASM accounting for an estimated 2% of total cobalt supply from the DRC in 2024."[1]

Which conflicts with the NPR article, "In his new book, Cobalt Red, Kara writes that much of the DRC's cobalt is being extracted by so-called 'artisanal' miners..."[2]

Unfortunately, nowhere in the NPR article does it give a hard number to compare like the Cobalt Institute, but as of 2024, JP Morgan analysis said "ASMs... contribute up to 30% of the DRC’s cobalt supply..."[3]

So, what can we do?

Mining and battery production don't require pseudo-slavery, so maybe the best answer is to work towards improved conditions in ASMs in the DRC, develop battery reuse/recycling, and searching for alternative sources of the conflict minerals so that the industy can vote with their wallet.

Unless you have another solution?

1: https://www.cobaltinstitute.org/responsible-sustainable-coba...

2: https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2023/02/01/1152893...

3: https://web.archive.org/web/20240704040321/https://am.jpmorg...

Consumption of resources always has an impact on the environment. The question is which type is less bad.

Oil is extracted and used once before becoming harmful pollution, while minerals for electrical infrastructure like batteries can be extracted once and then are reusable forever.

Am I correct in assuming that you believe, as Trump puts it, that global climate change is a hoax invented by the Chinese to ruin the American economy? And that we should stay on fossil fuels forever?

Or if I am wrong about you, then tell us what you yourself actually believe. What do you specifically believe about global climate change? And what specifically should we be doing about energy? And also, what do you think about Trump's claim that wind turbines cause cancer, and his claim that China has no wind turbines?

I strongly suspect that you won't answer these questions, or you will do so but in a vague, evasive manner. But perhaps I am wrong about this.

All mining is filled with "shady and evil" stuff.

The difference is batteries can be recycled, so we will need almost no mines in the steady state. 99% of lead-acid batteries are made from recycled batteries. That means we'll only need 1% of the cobalt mines in the future (assuming newer batteries need cobalt at all, which is unlikely).

Oil and coal on the other hand will have to be mined or drilled forever because it isn't recyclable. The "shady and evil" stuff in the mining there will go on and on until the oil and coal run out.

If you repeat the "batteries need toxic mines" meme without talking about oil spills, methane leaks, and coal mine pollution, you're a useful idiot for the fossil fuel companies. Or making money off them in some way.

>> Friendly reminder that the battery industry is filled with shady and evil stuff. Cobalt mining for example.

What I am about to say is going to come off as exceptionally insensitive, but bear with me. The mining conditions are horrific and of course it would be better if regulation was introduced and industrial methods of extraction was used. But you have to wonder, if there are thousands of men and teenagers willing to toil in the sun all day for a tiny amount of money, what other alternatives do they have for income?

If cobalt never existed in DRC, what exactly would they be doing for work and subsistence? Is this horribly unsafe and in-humane form of work a step up from whatever alternatives they have, or perhaps from nothing at all.

Again I am not condoning it, I am just wondering.

This is not relevant to LFP and sodium ion chemistries, which most of the industry is moving towards.

Friendly reminder that battery chemistries differ greatly. Lithium iron phosphate, a safer but less dense chemistry than Lithium Ion, contains no cobalt.