Last article in this series devoted to industrial mines, you can find the other parts here:
Part 1 : Mines, an environmental disaster
Part 2 : Mines, a social disaster
Part 3 : The return of mines to Europe: ecology at the bottom of the hole
The impossibility of mineral decay
While the analyses carried out by Célia Izoard and the SysText association are valuable for the ecological fight, there is a point of disagreement with ATR on the strategy to adopt. Here, we focus primarily on Célia Izoard's strategic proposals.
His idea is to decrease the overall consumption of metals in the economy, to reduce the use of extractivism. In her opinion, this would require strong political measures, obtained through the establishment of a balance of power resulting from social movements and the consultation of the populations concerned by the establishment of mines [1].
Like Theeco-leninist Andreas Malm, Izoard suggests distinguishing “subsistence extraction” from “luxury extraction” to fight against mineral “overconsumption”. For example, ChatGPT and two-ton electric cars would represent mineral overconsumption, and would not meet essential needs. The definition of what is and is not essential for survival could be determined by social justice movements or local citizen conventions. Second, objects corresponding to luxury extractivism would undoubtedly be removed from the economy by strong political measures. For example, it would be a question of banning electric SUVs, which consume too much metal compared to their usefulness. We should also “legislate” on the age of telephone access (as if the state were not part of the problem).
Because let's assume, for example, that such a program can be set up (how? By what interests? With what direct democracy? With what level of popular education? With which hardware applications? Under what timeframe?).
Just imagine. You are a citizen invited to a local convention in charge of reflecting on the subject: “What are the essential needs for which extractivism must be stored ? ”. You are informed, because you have read the book by Izoard which recalls why the smartphone is neither socially nor environmentally viable. One passage in particular stood out for you:
” It is clear that Fairphone [2] has been exploring for ten years all the ways that would make the smartphone socially and environmentally acceptable. The fact that she is not there Reviane not, or very marginally, forces us to make an overwhelming observation: the object is not viable. (...) even with the best will in the world, it is not It is not possible to produce an object containing more than fifty different metals under decent conditions[3]. ”
As a good student, you therefore propose to ban the marketing of smartphones in France. But the other participants reply that the smartphone is essential for them in modern situations (for example to secure bank transfers, find their way around space, stay in contact with their children, deal with an emergency situation, etc.) and that this decision would be unpopular [4]. If by some miracle the proposal is nevertheless adopted, it is very likely that the government will refuse to submit it to the vote of the National Assembly (as was the case for the majority of the proposals of the Citizens' Climate Assembly [5]), because the smartphone is essential to the functioning of the economy. Banning it would constitute a competitive disadvantage compared to other countries (leading to crisis and unemployment). And who would voluntarily renounce economic growth? Moreover, this measure would surely be incompatible with European rules, and therefore inapplicable. Finally, imagining reaching a consensus among all countries on the ban on the production and marketing of smartphones is pure fantasy.
There you go. You have just experienced the problems of planning. Now all you have to do is start over, despite the slight probability of winning, for all the minerals and each product made of them. You are going to try again for television. You are going to try again for the microwave. You will try again for radios, electric cars, washing machines, washing machines, digital, digital, heat pumps, photocopiers, light bulbs, satellites, MRI scanners, aerospace, space, radiators, radiators, radiators, refrigerators, computers, etc.
So it seems that “planning from the bottom up” leads to the continuation of ecocide.
In other words, all these objects unfortunately seem to be part of the “subsistence extractivism” defended by Célia Izoard. But what if this “subsistence” extractivism causes water shortages and poisoning to make... washing machines? If the “subsistence” of some depends on the non-existence of others?
ChatGPT is cited by Izoard as a non-essential source of “luxury extractivism”. Unfortunately, it seems that the race for power is on around AI excludes any form of regulation. Moreover, these strategic technologies for the economy and the military (AI, 5G, etc.) are rarely the subject of democratic consultations (some states even declare them of “national interest”). The Citizens' Climate Convention [6] thus proposed to establish a moratorium on 5G, before knowing its implications on health and climate. But in September 2020, in front of digital manufacturers, Emmanuel Macron declared that France would take the turn of 5G and that he refused “the return to the oil lamp” and “the Amish model [7].”
But this failure is not only due to the President and his contemptuous phrases. Giving up 5G means giving up being competitive, so it means sinking French companies in the face of international competition. No leader, right or left, would make such a decision.
Determining democratically which products should be kept or not is a puzzle doomed to failure, due to the inseparability of the techno-industrial system. Indeed, all the elements of the techno-industrial system are interdependent and cannot exist without the others. The various technological “layers” (electrification, digital, etc.) do not overlap but add up and intertwine.
It is therefore impossible to do without digital technology and to maintain rail networks, for example [8].
Moreover, production chains are too long, complex and globalized to be able to determine the final uses of metals. Even the CEO of Fairphone, “ethical” operator, Recognize it[9]. Because how to know the final use of copper ores extracted in Spain in the Rio Tinto mine, then smelted and refined in China, before being sold to industries all over the world [10]?
In addition, the different possible uses of the same metal or the extraction of secondary metals distorts a potential democratic dialogue around the opening of mines. For example, the public debate organized around the future Echassière lithium mine in Allier highlights the production of electric batteries made possible by its opening. But the fact that lithium is also used in aerospace alloys to reduce the weight of equipment (or missile heads [11]) is not mentioned. Nor the fact that this mine is located on a deposit of beryllium, a metal more toxic than asbestos but strategic for the arms and aeronautical industries [12].
As a result, the only possible measures are unable to solve the problem. Even if a “good” government were to succeed in authoritatively banning electric cars or limiting the use of smartphones for children, these measures would weigh very little in the face of the global increase in metal demand.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, mineral degrowth (as well as degrowth in general) is confronted with an economic impossibility of total control of globalized production chains, with a geopolitical impossibility linked to the economic and military war waged by states and companies, and with a technical impossibility linked to the interdependence between all the elements of the techno-industrial system.
If extractivism must be fought, it is not with “metal balances”, engineers who show “the example”, “low-tech computing”, “better paid” children in the “responsible” mines of Fairphone, appeals to the conscience of industrialists, appeals to the conscience of industrialists, collectivization, legal remedies and symbolic actions.
To bring down the mining hell that threatens life on Earth, the only option is the total dismantling of the techno-industrial system.
