Unless you’re studying for a high school science exam, lithium, nickel, copper, and cobalt probably won’t carry much meaning beyond being elements on the periodic table. But if there is a time to pull out those dusty science books, it would be now.
Across various sectors, these minerals are of increasing importance, including – perhaps most prominently – renewable energy generation and storage, and electric vehicles; but also other large and growing sectors such as military and AI (e.g., for datacenters). And around the world, many governments and companies are competing to control who can dig them up.
The global minerals rush
These raw Earth materials are often called “critical minerals” by governments and the mining industry, typically a reflection of national political priorities rather than essential societal or energy transition needs. This risks turning these minerals into the focus of a new neo-colonial resource grab, with powerful countries and corporations racing to control them, and wasting their potential to power a fair and green transition.
Globally – from Chile, Argentina, DRC, Indonesia, Sweden to the deep sea – the extractivist rush for minerals puts vital ecosystems, peoples’ rights and the lives and livelihoods of Indigenous Peoples and local communities at risk. The geopolitical scramble over minerals has also been linked to the current US government’s aggressive annexation threats to Greenland.
Minerals have different uses, and there are no guarantees that the minerals mined “in the name of energy transition” are used for wind turbines or energy storage. For example, big tech companies are consuming more and more of these minerals to expand AI infrastructure (such as datacenters). In addition to driving up energy demand and emissions, the vision of ‘progress’ advocated by big tech oligarchs also threatens to worsen extractive pressures on people and nature, and divert minerals away from energy transition. Moreover, mineral use in the expansion of AI-driven warfare systems has been found as a particularly concerning development.
In light of this, it is more important than ever to demand coordinated action to ensure that minerals are used where they matter most: principally, for a fast fair fossil fuel phase out and a transition to clean, affordable renewable energy and sustainable transport systems.
So how do we protect people and nature in the energy transition?
Reduce, recycle, restrict for a safeguarded energy transition
In a report commissioned by Greenpeace International, and authored by academics at the Institute for Sustainable Futures at the University of Technology, Sydney (UTS) in Australia, we’ve found that an ambitious energy transition can be achieved without mining in vital ecosystems – whether on land or at sea. With visionary leadership, sound policies, and innovative technologies, we can keep global warming within 1.5°C, safeguard vital ecosystems and reduce extractive pressures on people and nature.
Here’s five ways how:
1. Reduce mineral demand with improved public transport, car-sharing, and smaller, more efficient vehicles
Accessibility, efficiency, and reliability in how cities are governed make them great places to live in. Having improved public transport systems is one of the most effective ways to reduce the need for mineral-intensive electric vehicles and the batteries that power them. In addition to expanding high-quality public transport, employing car-sharing schemes, and investing in active mobility (e.g. walking and cycling infrastructure) would significantly decrease reliance on individual car ownership.
As an added bonus improving our public transport systems is essential not just for climate, but for connecting people to opportunities. Mobility justice is climate justice.
2. Incentivise and substitute battery technology towards alternatives requiring less lithium, cobalt, or nickel
Think about how many items you use that require batteries? Without it, our personal gadgets would be useless; we wouldn’t have advancement in items like electric cars or bikes; and batteries can also help store and use more eco-friendly sources of energy, such as solar and wind. But the production of large batteries is highly mineral-intensive.
Luckily, over the last decade, technological innovation has transformed the market. Lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries, now widely commercialised, eliminate the need for cobalt and nickel, reducing pressure on these supply chains. At the same time, sodium-ion (Na-ion) batteries are advancing rapidly, and offer a pathway to significantly reduce mineral demand for lithium, according to the report. It shows that, using innovative battery technologies and energy storage systems that do not require these key minerals would significantly reduce supply gaps for key minerals and ease potential development pressures for new mines targeting them.
3. Design for circularity and scale up recycling
We all know the drill by now – reduce, reuse, recycle. When it comes to transition minerals, this maxim is of key importance.
By maximising collection and the recovery of transition minerals from end-of-life transition technologies, recycling can significantly reduce the need for new extraction. Investing in advanced recycling technologies and collection systems, alongside policy incentives that reward high recycled mineral content in new products, ensures that transition minerals re-enter the supply chain.
Additional circularity measures like extending technologies’ lifespans, improving repairability, incentivising reuse, designing and standardising components for easy disassembly to help with repair and recycling, and enforcing extended producer responsibility (EPR), could also contribute to reducing overall mineral demands.
4. Prioritise mineral use for essential energy transition needs
Minerals are finite resources, and the practice of mining carries significant social, labour, and environmental risks. Therefore, the use of mineral resources should be prioritised where they matter most – in renewable energy and its storage and in electric mobility to enable a fast fair fossil fuel phase out.
Governments and industries must prioritise mineral use towards a fast, fair, and just energy transition. Coupled with supply chain transparency, prioritising minerals for energy transition ensures finite minerals are used to advance climate goals that benefit all people and the planet.
5. Protect key ‘Restricted Areas’ from mining development
Protecting human rights and ecological integrity is a non-negotiable foundation of a just and green transition. Restricted Areas have high environmental, ecological, and natural values, and may include Indigenous Peoples and local community territories. Defining and protecting these Restricted Areas is a crucial step to ensuring that mining of transition minerals respects the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities to their territories, and does not destroy biodiversity, critical natural ecosystems, natural carbon storage, freshwater systems and oceans.
After all, what is “critical” here is not a minerals scramble largely driven by geopolitical rivalry. Neither the AI race, nor the power and profit chased by States and corporations.
Critical are the ecosystems that all living beings on the planet depend on.
Critical are the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities.
Critical is meeting peoples’ needs and ensuring that current and future generations can live in a safe climate.
For this, it’s essential for our world leaders to take courageous and coordinated action to protect people and the planet, and ensure our Earth’s minerals help create a green and just future, rather than being exploited for short-term profit.
Author: Elsa Lee is the Co-Head of Biodiversity at Greenpeace International
A U.S.-Japan partnership could breathe new life into a former nuclear waste remediation site, but analysts see more potential pitfalls than promise.
PIKETON, Ohio—At the edge of Appalachia, on a site where crews have worked for decades on nuclear waste remediation, the Trump administration aims to build the largest power plant and data center in the country.
A Massive, Trump-Backed Power Plant May Be Too Big to Succeed
A future powered by clean energy would be not only more affordable, but potentially more peaceful.
From our collaborating partner “Living on Earth,” public radio’s environmental news magazine, an interview by host Steve Curwood with Michael Klare, an emeritus professor of peace and security studies at Hampshire College.
In a Q&A with Climate Home News, the head of sustainability at global lighting company Signify explains how the firm is doubling down on its efforts to protect the climate and strengthen resilience.
In March, Signify launched its latest corporate sustainability programme, “Brighter Lives, Better World 2030”.
The programme is the third iteration of a project that started in 2016, aimed at shifting how the company – and its customers – can reduce their environmental impact.
It centres on enhanced targets to improve energy efficiency, cut greenhouse gas emissions and promote the circular economy. In addition, Signify has set itself a challenging goal to source 41% of its revenue from solutions “that support benefits beyond illumination” by the end of 2030, up from 31% in 2024. Those benefits include efficient food production and increased access to solar lighting.
Signify is aiming to save 60 terawatt hours (TWh) of electricity for its customers; achieve a 35% reduction in the CO2 emissions intensity of its portfolio; and grow its circular product business from 10% to 27.5% of revenue.
Climate Home News spoke with the company’s global head of sustainability, Maurice Loosschilder, to find out how the Netherlands-based multinational plans to reach its targets despite a tough political landscape for green action.
Q: How does Signify’s new sustainability programme build on lessons learned from previous versions?
A: If we look back a little bit, it is a natural next step. Signify [formerly Philips Lighting] became a standalone company roughly 10 years ago and in 2016 we launched our first “Brighter Lives, Better World 2020” programme at the same time.
The first programme mirrored developments in the lighting industry and was very much based on our own operations: reaching 100% renewable electricity, zero waste to landfill in our manufacturing facilities, increasing the energy efficiency in our own portfolio.
Since then, we’ve moved on to think about our entire value chain and the wider social contributions we want our work to be making. But we still want to be thinking about how to improve our own business. Our continued target to double the amount of women in leadership positions is an example of that.
Q: Looking at the political climate, both in the US and Europe, there isn’t the same concern for environmental issues as there was a few years ago. Many corporates are perceived to be rolling back on their environmental commitments. How are you as a company navigating some of these challenges?
A: This is not something new. If we look back on the last five to 10 years, we’ve seen a lot of disruption and change in the market. We’ve had a global pandemic, supply chain disruptions, energy insecurity. At the same time we’ve seen the increased impacts of climate change and all of that is changing the dynamics of doing business right now.
I think these changes have really tested resilience – the resilience of companies, the resilience of people, the resilience of societies. We really believe that resilience is becoming more and more important to businesses right now. And if you look at what a resilient company is, it is one that decarbonises faster, invests in people, invests in circular solutions and makes its business model more circular. And that’s exactly what we have focused on. It’s about making sure we can cope, and help our customers cope, with changing market circumstances and the geopolitical tensions we see in the world.
Q: Turning to your own commitments, do you feel you have set the right balance between ambitious and achievable?
A: Yes, we strongly believe this programme is the right one for us and our customers, and has been informed by a thorough double-materiality assessment. It is built on three pillars: benefits beyond illumination, energy efficiency and resource efficiency. These are supported by new initiatives, such as Signify Circle, which will support professional customers with their circular economy ambitions.
If we just look at the first pillar, it’s about the positive impact that lighting brings, in terms of productivity, in terms of safety, in terms of food availability, health and well-being, and now we have added solar in there. This is what we mean by “benefits beyond illumination”.
Q: If we take one of your targets to save 60 TWh of electricity for your customers, that seems quite hard to work out. Do you find data availability to be an issue?
A: Data is a challenge in sustainability, but we have been measuring our avoided emissions for years, so we know the data requirements behind it. We’ve done all our homework and with that we have set this target.
The 60 TWh figure is about the annual electricity usage of Switzerland so it is a substantial amount. But it also reflects the role that lighting plays in general. If you look at a typical city, street lighting alone accounts for about 40% of electricity use. So the potential is enormous.
The International Energy Agency reports that about 8% of global electricity use comes from lighting, and this translates into 2% of global greenhouse gas emissions. That’s really significant and why the opportunity here is so big.
Q: How has the new programme been informed by the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)?
A: Our strategic compass is the Sustainable Development Goals. We committed to six SDGs in the previous programme. The new one has been expanded to cover eight and we conducted a mapping exercise for each of the commitments. I’m hoping that, by the end of this programme, we will see a new version of the SDGs to replace the current goals when they expire in 2030. We remain committed to making our contribution to the SDGs.
Q: Are you seeing higher demand for circular products? What is it that attracts businesses to that option?
A: Yes, we do see an increased demand. For example, we see greater interest in “remanufacturing”, which is a circular business model where we take down the lighting, send it back to our manufacturing site, and upgrade it to the latest technology, but keep the majority of the hardware intact.
I think customers are becoming more and more aware of the fact that regulation is pushing resource efficiency on businesses. And in some countries we see incentives to use circular products, and penalties around sending certain material to landfill. More businesses are becoming aware of this and we strongly believe there is a market for circular products.
How off-grid solar is beating the odds to transform lives in rural Africa
Q: Do you have customers that are facing real resource pressures, in terms of scarcity, increased costs or supply chain constraints that are making them think more about circular issues?
A: The whole market is currently impacted by geopolitical tensions and the disruptions that come as a result. Light as a Service, for example, could be a way for businesses to de-risk because there is no capital expenditure involved. Customers see real value in only having to pay to keep it running.
If we look longer term, then resource and material efficiency is something the whole world should be thinking more about. How can we decouple economic growth from the increased use of natural resources? We believe the circular economy is the answer.
This interview has been shortened and edited for clarity.
Adam Wentworth is a freelance writer based in Brighton, UK.
The post Signify: “We believe resilience is becoming more important to businesses right now” appeared first on Climate Home News.
Signify: “We believe resilience is becoming more important to businesses right now”
-
Greenhouse Gases9 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change9 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Renewable Energy7 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测