The very rough gist is that there is historical evidence of pre agrarian humans starving to death with stomachs full of lean meat. In a nomadic lifestyle where they chase down prey protein costs too much energy to digest and convert into usable energy.
The wording of "less than half the volume of construction materials" mined each year seems hand wavy as a justification that this is possible. If I'm reading the chart right that would suggest we'd need a roughly 25% increase in the amount of global mineral extraction.
That is not meant to be "hand wavy," as there is no "hand-wavy" way to gloss over the fact that humans are putting out massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year. It is now on the order of over 45,000,000,000 tonnes (45 Gt) yearly, meaning we need at least 36 Gt of olivine to offset it. That is no small amount of rock and we do not plan to start at that level. The reason we mention those numbers is to let you know that it is more than possible to acquire that much material each year, as we are doing it for multiple other industries each year.
Olivine mining is open-pit near the surface and is neither labor nor energy intensive. Based on current olivine (dunite) mining in Norway, where they mined 3.4 million tonnes of dunite with only 141 employees[1], it can be extrapolated that the 36 GT of olivine needed could be mined by less than 1.5 million people working at the same capacity globally.
To put that in perspective for you, the Chinese coal market employeed 5.29 million people in 2013, and based on a 2017 report, they are trying to remove 2.3 million people from the industry[2]. So there are plenty of people who could do this, it is about creating the demand for the mineral.
There are many developing countries around the world lacking other valuable exports, yet that have olivine reserves, and we look at helping them create "green" jobs as a potential benefit.
I disagree with that as an example of a "misplaced faith in evidence". That is coming to the wrong conclusion due to committing a false cause logical fallacy. Drawing the wrong conclusion should not be confused with a "misplaced faith in evidence". It seems that the religious really want to use the term faith in regards to science so as to imply that scientists "stoop to their level". That argument is seemingly often made that scientists have a blind faith in science. Certainly it happens that a scientist will hold onto beliefs against evidence, will doctor evidence to confirm their belief, and will cherry pick data to prove their belief that they hold despite evidence. But those are all actions that are antithetical to the scientific process. while and endemic to religion.
I understand the concern but as someone who grew up in Boulder, and now works at Google Boulder I feel like people are giving off this incorrect impression of Boulder. It's a small town (~120k people w/ students) but it was never a particularly affordable place. Unfortunately there's not a whole lot that can be done to shield a desirable small town from becoming more expensive as more people become aware of it's existence. You can keep Boulder small with minimal development and get the skyrocketing housing prices or you can attempt to remedy this by building significantly more housing. For a long time now it's been evident that the city council has chosen the first option.
Boulder may be the most quintessentially NIMBY community in the USA. And it's been that way for decades, so yes, this is a strange discussion to have about Boulder of all places. Importantly though, I suspect Boulder has an above average number of renters who will be disproportionately impacted by an increase in high paying job growth, as they will not see any return on equity.
The new office has been open for 3 months and Google has had a presence in Boulder for a decade. Google is pretty far from "dictating...how they want want the neighborhood and city to be structured". The city council has promoted low growth and high housing prices for decades and will continue to do so.
I always get slightly sad when I hear the complaints against Google in Boulder as I honestly believe the effect it has had on housing prices has been overstated. For some context, I'm a Boulder native, I grew up here, went to preschool through college here, and am fortunate enough to get a job that pays me enough to stay here. And for what it's worth Google has had an office in Boulder for about 10 or 11 years now. I'm more than happy to discuss this more thoroughly here, through pms, or over coffee :)
I really think it's too early to tell, but people who don't work at Google - like me, are worried. In the last two years, the number of people working Google has doubled to 650; the new campus will hold 1500 workers. That's well over 1% of the total population of Boulder, working at Google - and you must agree that this will be a new phenomenon for Boulder's housing market.
For a city that's not so into building new housing, and most especially affordable housing, the writing is on the wall about what's going to happen to current housing prices, not to mention the general cost of living, in Boulder.
The elephant in the room when it comes to any housing boom (like in Denver) in the west is water: the current supply is already strained. Do remember we pump water through massive tunnels under mountains from the western slope to feed the current demand. We need more people on the front range? I dunno.
Also I think it's safe to think that the Silicon Valley region is a pretty unlivable/undesirable place to be, and what's happened to S.F isn't something any city really wants, unless you are filthy rich. "Google Effect" and all...
The very rough gist is that there is historical evidence of pre agrarian humans starving to death with stomachs full of lean meat. In a nomadic lifestyle where they chase down prey protein costs too much energy to digest and convert into usable energy.