In May 2024, the Beyond Hot Air network hosted a multi-stakeholder workshop at the University of Vienna to promote more sustainable and inclusive decision-making around the mining of critical raw materials (CRM) for the energy transition. The workshop sought to encourage honest and open debate among stakeholders representing a multitude of interests, and find areas of common ground for disparate groups to converse meaningfully. Participants recognised that in different spheres (industry, politics, geology, social science, public activism) there can be contradictory or misleading information, a lack of reliable data to support policy decisions, and an absence of honest talk and genuine listening on all sides. In other words, there is a lot of ‘hot air’ in public debates about mining for the energy transition. Based on the workshop discussions, the Beyond Hot Air team has identified six key questions for the network to explore further as a priority:
- How ‘green’ and ‘critical’ is mining for the energy transition?
In Europe and beyond, mining is being rebranded as ‘green’ and ‘critical’ for the energy transition, but it is still a dirty industry. This rebranding can be seen as part of a wider effort to encourage public support for current energy-transition strategies – such as the European Green Deal and the EU Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA) – which rely on increased mineral extraction. Governments are offering the industry subsidies and incentives to mine for ‘critical’ (or ‘strategic’) raw materials, often framed in terms of support for clean technology. Fast-track permitting is being promoted, especially for strategic projects, which can entail bypassing or rushing through the necessary approvals and public consultation processes. But how is criticality determined, and how might this change over time? And should the energy transition be presented a ‘green’ transition, if it is based so heavily on raw material extraction? Should mining be promoted as ‘sustainable’ or ‘responsible’ – and what is really meant by these terms?
- How much mineral extraction do we really need?
Can we rely on the facts and figures behind arguments for the criticality of mineral extraction? Are projections of future demand accurate? Do we trust the institutions making these assessments? CRM extraction is said to be ‘demand-driven’, but demand is often artificially created – through ‘planned obsolescence’ of goods, and targeted marketing of constantly updated technology. And the ‘strategic’ label refers not only to green, digital and medical technologies, but also military applications. Demand also changes with the introduction of new technologies that require different mineral components. Circular economy approaches and recycling are a valuable part of the solution, but they have significant challenges, and may also be used as a justification for continuing business as usual. The twin elephants in the room are consumption and waste. We need to critically examine supply chains from both ends, not only responsible sourcing of CRM (increasing scrutiny along supply chains), but also responsible use (redesigning products, reassessing business models, reducing consumption and waste, and changing consumer behaviour). We also need to critically assess the effectiveness of new legislation being introduced to tackle these issues.
- How do (geo)politics, power relations and financial flows influence the agenda?
The mining sector is highly influenced by (geo)politics – especially in relation to CRM. Mining is characterised by speculation, booms and busts, and complex decision-making. Mines are embedded within cycles of investment and financial flows, with subsidies and incentives, political pressures and industry lobbying. Mining also attracts coordinated resistance, locally and beyond, including potentially polarising social media campaigns. Government subsidies and incentives for large mining companies are often unjustifiable from a financial or ethical perspective. However, this practice permeates the sector, partly because mining creates expectations of employment and regional development in the eyes of politicians and the public, and partly because of pressures from geopolitical competitors. China’s dominance in the CRM sphere has driven EU policy and national policies on CRM across the world, with countries seeking to develop more diverse and resilient CRM supply chains. Globally, Chinese investment in CRM projects is increasing, but – as with all such investments – it can be unreliable. The challenge for local and national politicians and the public is to look beyond the immediate (geo)political and financial arguments, and investigate the real risks and benefits of mining for local communities and wider society.
- Who will benefit most from mining for the energy transition?
Mining of CRM can bring benefits to society, local communities, governments and businesses, but the distribution of benefits can be very uneven. ‘National interests’ or the power of corporations often overcome communities’ determination to protect their heritage, livelihoods or natural habitats. On the other hand, different types of benefit sharing are possible, including Indigenous co-ownership models. Yet, where power relations are highly unequal, communities may lack the agency to negotiate on a more equal footing. In Europe, efforts to develop mines have resulted in public protest, while conflict situations can also be manipulated by political leaders, and indeed environmental NGOs. Some historical mining communities regret the loss of a mine where deposits are exhausted or uneconomic. Others face huge unforeseen costs of mining closure, or the impacts of a failure to clean up so-called ‘zombie mines‘ after they have been abandoned. Some communities want new mining to happen, but this depends on realistic assessments of its value for longer-term development; certainly, mining is a poor industry to rely on to sustain a community consistently into the future. Realistic assessments and open discussion of potential costs and benefits over the long term need to form the basis of early negotiations around how – and whether – a mine development goes ahead.
- Should mining be allowed wherever they find minerals?
Geology dictates that you can only ‘extract minerals where you find them’. A further consideration is economic feasibility, including factors such as the quality of the ore, cost of extraction, and transportation links. Some (especially newer) mines present serious geological challenges, and not all companies want to incur the costs of technical innovation. Meanwhile, social and cultural considerations often receive less attention (due to less legal recognition) in the permitting process and feasibility studies. Some regions are considered favourable for mining because they are perceived as sparsely populated ‘empty’ lands, a perspective associated with colonialist policy-making. Thus, geology and economics are not the only reasons that Indigenous peoples’ lands and territories in the Global South have historically been mined. The EU hasn’t fully explored its own geological potential to date. The region of Sápmi – the home of the Indigenous Sami people – has traditionally been Europe’s mining powerhouse, and is now a target for CRM mining. There is a need for open national debates to determine priorities in a transparent and informed manner. Politicians and the public know very little about mining geology, chemicals and technologies; different mining options such as exploiting tailings and previously ‘uneconomic’ sites; or the full potential and challenges of recycling and the circular economy. It will take interdisciplinary research with public involvement to generate a more balanced picture of available options.
- When does ‘no’ mean ‘no’?
Consultation, negotiation and consent, and questions such as ‘who represents local interests?’, are increasingly recognised as critical aspects of decision-making on mineral extraction. The principles of free prior and informed consent (FPIC) and meaningful consultation are now more commonly applied in the mining sector than in previous decades. However, local communities’ ‘right to say no’ to a mining development needs to be properly respected. It is important that communities near mines really can say ‘no’ (if they want to), while consent agreements need to have time limits (to enable them to be revisited and renewed). National legal rights to consultation and consent are vital, and efforts are continuing in several countries to ensure that the law does indeed protect these rights adequately. However, the complexities and contextual nuances associated with applying principles in practice and ensuring adequate implementation of consultation and consent processes in the mining sector are still under-studied by scholars, and poorly understood across political and industry groups.
For more information, see the report from the Vienna workshop, the BhA Briefing Paper #4, which elaborates on this topic, or contact the organisers, Gertrude Saxinger (lead): gertrude.saxinger@uni-graz.at and Marlene Auer (administrator): bha.powi@univie.ac.at
