The way to get zero waste supply chains and clean up the planet is with a pollution tax. Not having one is just subsidizing the negative externality, its a continious massive state grant transfer payment to pollution for profit schemes many of which still can't keep afloat without endless austerity inducing bailouts by other names ala the fossil fuel industry because of inherant features tech won't solve but where the 'industries' are optional to begin with. In the US the norm is 14 trucks of waste per truck of product- or was no long ago. And we have a chemical industry too lazy and entitled to figure out what to do with its reactant wastes (which are much larger than its product stream) so when it couldn't just dump into rivers, lakes and the ocean it started dumping into our food (standardized hidden ingredients) agricultural supplies and toiletries and trying to call that poisoning a move toward zero waste or efficiency. Or tried to backwards indemnify with stuff like metal processing seepage and the flouride policy. Worst of all was it saving reactant waste in vats and off gassing them and evaporating them down until under insane dillution theory these were light enough to crop dust us with- which has apparently been their lazy entitled way of avoiding an actual zero waste supply chain and protecting unjustified rates of profit- they've been writing and cashing checks on the public dime that the social utility of their actual contribution could never cover. That's called theft and pent up illgotten gain to be disgorged which will hapoen politically so there will be no statute of limitations to observe. Same with pharma- we would be much further along and evolved beyond drugs if the universities did the research and handed it to all manufactures instead of exclusively and with long term exclusive patents. So the chemical industry can change under a pollution tax to zero waste or be absorbed as infrastructure and run at cost like the highway system. Have to make sure too the chemical industry can't circle back the tax with more waste.
This is not going to be difficult. You stop all together the emissions of the chemical and dying fossil fuel industry. They don't get to emit period, not into the air or water or the ground. They also don't store waste- they process it completely down to elements or turn it into other non sham products. Right now they try to sell poisonous waste as additives and they sell dirty plastic. They can make synthetic plastics or remove the families of toxins the EU bans from plastics etc., and make it biodegreadable. We keep them from trying to inflate the costs of doing so on pain of loss of chater. They don't leave their waste in storage for anything but a short period before processing or they get hit with confiscatory tax that instantly recovers the full cost of processing the waste and hit again and again with it the longer it stays there. But I see where you'r trying to go its the same old BS. Like the comment in the forum that tried to make the ridiculous comparison of NG to lithium for production. Lithium now can be extracted with just water which its conserves or retains for endless re-use with out disturbing much but some superficial top layers in limited desert areas but in a way that leaves the area essentially the way it was sans the the lithium and it can and will be done with clean solar driven equipment. But its always the same. BMW ICE vehicles spontaneously combust while parked and then BMW pays shill media to say Tesla's have problems with fires and to not cover BMW's actual problems. Fossil fuel industry is the biggest user of cobalt slave labor as an additive to replace lead in gas but it pays to say tech has that problem to preemptively deflect. BMW has trouble retaining talent because its an embarrasment but next thing InsideEvs runs an article saying Tesla has this problem in Germany. BMW gets caught inflating its US sales (certainly by a huge amount and surely globally and by obvious inference inflating marketshare and financial results) just resorts to lying and insideevs publishes an article trying to imply we should question Model Y sales. EVs are green and fossil fuel industry publishes bogus stuff saying EV are more carbon intensive to produce than ICE. ICE competition can't cut it on EVs so they try to conflate the WLTP with the EPA ratings intermingling to push their lame ICE (fossil fuel industry) has a future narrative. GM as ICE is getting decapitalized so it has Navigant (which it must essentially own) and CR say GMs Cruz bs is better than Tesla's AP because Cruz is better at saying its broken all the time. Can't deal with climate change so FF industry pays shill media to say its not real and captures the Trump admin to pull out of Paris and destroy air and water protections. All you have to do is follow the money to the bullsht and you'll find a sociopath or a narccisist so called 'leader' a Shikrelli type next to some money and you know there is a problem and get to work on it. Its just law enforcement as there is no freedom to pollute or exploit or gouge or any of that culture of corruption bs stuff.
This is a lie. The production of Lithium-ion batteries is the single largest use of cobalt. The only reason why child labor is used in the Congo is that their economy isn't developed enough to where children don't need to work for the family's survival (these conditions are largely the result of endless internal conflicts). https://www.globalenergymetals.com/cobalt/cobalt-demand/#:~:text=The%20rechargeable%20battery%20segment%20has,growth%20driver%20for%20cobalt%20demand. You are being misleading. Nobody denies that ICE cars can catch fire. The issue is that the incident of fire occurring per car is higher with EVs. Both are low numbers, but its still something to notice. Those battery recalls have happened for a reason. And no, it's not because of "fossil fuel shilling"; it's because any newer technology will have kinks to work out. Litium ion batteries went into commercial production for the first time 30 years ago and weren't really used in cars until about 20 years ago. That really isn't very long. Also, the Paris accord is pointless. Trump pulling out of it has no consequences whatsoever because it was a non-binding agreement anyways.
