Connect with us

Published

on

Argentine lawmakers are set to vote this week on government proposals to weaken a landmark law that bans mining on and around glaciers, days after President Javier Milei’s libertarian administration signed a critical minerals supply deal with the US.

Milei will ask Congress to amend 2010 legislation known as the glaciers law – hailed as the first of its kind in the world – which prohibits activities such as mining or oil drilling on the nearly 17,000 glaciers and surrounding periglacial areas that supply water to millions of Argentines and the vital agricultural sector.

While glaciers account for less than 1% of Argentina’s vast territory, they overlap with large mineral deposits, especially copper, a critical mineral which is in hot demand for use in renewable energy systems, power grid infrastructure and batteries for electric vehicles (EVs).

Soaring demand for the red metal is driving a supply shortage that could reach 30% by 2035, according to the International Energy Agency. 

Argentina, already a leading global lithium exporter, does not produce copper at present, but several major projects – on hold for years – could go ahead if Milei’s glacier law overhaul is approved by Congress, environmental campaigners and mining advocates say.

The nation’s mining exports reached $6.04 billion in 2025, according to the government.

Mineral-rich provinces would define protected areas

Milei says his bid to amend the glacier law is a way to give greater autonomy to the provinces by allowing them to decide exactly which glacial areas should be protected and off-limits for mining due to their role in water systems, and which should lose that status. Provincial authorities would then be allowed to grant mining permits in periglacial areas.

The amendment comes as part of a wider push by Milei – a close ideological ally of US President Donald Trump – to draw investment to the country, and the legislative overhaul is backed by mining companies and governors in the nation’s biggest mining provinces such as San Juan, Salta, Jujuy and Mendoza.

“This bill we are sending to Congress will bring investments that could create one million jobs,” Milei said of his plan to overhaul the glaciers law in November, adding that “environmentalists would prefer people to die of hunger before touching anything”.

    Earlier this month, Milei’s administration signed a critical minerals deal with the US to strengthen and secure supply chains, saying the accord was expected to drive significant economic growth and new investment.

    But many environmental scientists in Argentina say the government’s proposal puts business interests before safeguards vital to protecting the nation’s water supplies at a time when climate change is taking a heavy toll on glacial areas.

    “There is a clear intention among those pushing for these modifications to portray the current protection of the periglacial environment, or glacial waste rock, as a legal exaggeration, minimising the importance of these areas within the glaciers themselves and the ecosystem services they provide,” Guillermo Folguera, an environmental researcher from Argentina’s National Council for Scientific and Technical Research (CONICET), told Climate Home News.

    Some mining experts say regulators could protect water supplies by establishing technical criteria – such as the ice content of periglacial areas.

    Copper projects on ice – for now

    By opening a door to mining on areas that are currently protected, Milei’s plan could clear the way for at least four large copper projects that have been on hold since the glaciers law was passed 15 years ago, said FARN, an Argentine NGO focused on environmental issues and natural resources.

    “Today, some projects violate the glaciers law and that, with this regulatory change, could potentially begin operating,” Leandro Gómez, environmental policy coordinator at FARN, told Climate Home News.

    Giant copper mining projects that could be revived if the overhaul passes Congress include El Pachón and Agua Rica, both of which are owned by Swiss miner and commodities trader Glencore, according to FARN, which along with 26 other environmental organisations published a document rejecting the government’s proposal.

    Last year, Glencore said it planned to spend $4 billion to develop Agua Rica and $9.5 billion to develop El Pachón.

    The other two copper projects that FARN says could get the go-ahead if Milei’s amendments are passed are Los Azules and Josemaria in San Juan province.

    A tarmac road heading towards high glaciers in Argentina
    A view of the glaciers above Mendoza in Argentina (Photo: REUTERS/Ramiro Gomez)

    All four projects are located in areas classified as periglacial zones with rock glaciers, according to surveys by IANIGLIA, the national agency responsible for conducting inventories of such areas.

    Asked to comment on its Agua Rica project, now called MARA, Glencore said in a statement the site was not located on a rock glacier.

    “There is no rock glacier located in the footprint of the MARA project; neither in any current works nor within the foreseen area of future operations,” it said, adding that water management was a key element of the project’s design.

    “We have been developing a system designed to minimise or mitigate impacts on the local communities or the environment,” it said.

    Milei is confident of congressional approval

    Milei’s La Libertad Avanza party gained ground in Congress following a midterm election in October, and he voiced confidence in January about having enough votes to pass his glacier law proposal.

    Last week, José Peluc, a deputy for San Juan from La Libertad Avanza, was designated head of the lower house’s environment commission in a signal of support for the amendment, though some opposition lawmakers have condemned Milei’s plan.

    Lawmaker Maximiliano Ferraro from the centrist Civic Coalition told Congress in a recent debate that the proposal “is in clear violation” of the country’s constitution and Latin America’s 2018 Escazu Agreement on environmental rights.

    The amendment, like other government measures aimed at boosting big mining projects such as the Large Investment Incentive Regime (RIGI), is supported by the CAEM chamber that groups Argentina’s major mining companies. It has also said the change would help revive deadlocked copper projects.

    “Seventy-five percent of the surface area of ​​the copper projects that were announced need clarification of the law because they are in areas considered periglacial,” Roberto Cacciola, CAEM president, told La Nación newspaper.

    “Most have already started the application to enter the Large Investment Incentive Regime (RIGI),” he said.

    “Irreparable consequences” feared near copper project

    In the small town of Andalgalá in Catamarca province, which lies about 17 kilometres from the Agua Rica project, anti-mining activists have been holding weekly marches against the mine’s development since 2010 and they describe heavy-handed police tactics aimed at stifling their protests.

    They are dismayed by the government’s attempt to water down the glaciers law, fearing that allowing the mine to operate would endanger the town’s water supplies from the Andalgalá River.

    “Starting up Agua Rica would mean large-scale environmental destruction,” said Juan José Cólica, an agricultural engineer who worked for 35 years, until his retirement last year, at the National Institute of Agricultural Technology’s Andalgalá office.

      Glencore said it was working to complete the exploitation phase environmental impact report (EIR) for the project, which would be subjected to a technical review by the regulatory authority and public consultation.

      “We engage with our host communities to understand and address their concerns, including in respect of economic and social development opportunities for the region,” the company said.

      Cólica said allowing the mine to operate at the foot of the snow-capped Aconquija mountain would cause “irreparable consequences that could last for generations”.

      “There is no technical method or technology to remedy the damage that could be caused, nor to safeguard the population of Andalgalá from the geological, hydrological, environmental and health risks,” he said.

      The post Argentina’s pioneering glacier law on the line as Milei bets on copper rush appeared first on Climate Home News.

      Argentina’s pioneering glacier law on the line as Milei bets on copper rush

      Continue Reading

      Climate Change

      The Land Came First

      Published

      on

      An older teaching about land acknowledgement

      As I have come to understand the spirit and intention of land acknowledgement, I often return to fond memories of my grandmother and her words of wisdom. She taught that the health of the places we call home comes first, because the wellbeing of the people depends on it.

      In her teaching, land acknowledgement began with the land. Long before it became a paragraph read at the start of a meeting, it was a way of recognizing a homeland: its waters, its species, its seasons, and the spirit that revealed whether the place was well.

      Her teaching echoes a practice found across many Indigenous Nations. Haudenosaunee gatherings, for example, have long opened with the Ohén:ton Karihwatéhkwen, the Thanksgiving Address, often translated as “the words that come before all else.” The speaker greets and gives thanks to the people, the earth, the waters, the plants, the animals, the winds, the sun, the moon and the stars. Only after everything that sustains life has been acknowledged does the gathering turn to its own business.

      That order changes what an acknowledgement is for. Its purpose was to share the story of a place with neighbours and to draw them into the work of tending it. People entered the story second, as the ones responsible for what had just been named.

      Understood this way, an acknowledgement does more than open a meeting. It asks us to reconsider where we stand, and what we owe the ground beneath us.

      Nations among nations

      In her teaching, people are one nation among many. The salmon are a nation. So are the cedars, the bison, the medicine plants, and the pollinators. Each belongs to a place, carries its own responsibilities, and offers gifts no other nation can give.

      This idea of kinship runs through many Indigenous philosophies. The phrase “all my relations,” heard in ceremonies and gatherings across Turtle Island, is a reminder that family extends beyond people to the animals, plants, waters and lands that make life possible. Some Indigenous languages carry the same understanding in their grammar, speaking of many plants, animals and natural forces as living beings rather than objects.

      Sovereignty, understood through this relationship, is a kind of standing more than a form of control. Each nation belongs fully to its place and carries its share of that place’s life. No nation thrives alone, and none thrives by taking over the whole.

      The land is also the source of instruction. Over generations, people watched how a river valley or a stretch of prairie kept itself well: who arrived when, who fed whom, and how much could be taken before the giving stopped. In my grandmother’s telling, those observations became instructions, and those instructions helped shape law and protocol. They guided when to harvest, where to camp, how to enter a neighbour’s territory, and what was owed in return.

      Indigenous legal scholars today often describe this as law that comes from the land itself, learned by watching how living systems sustain one another. A plainer name for it is knowing how to live somewhere.

      The host and the guest

      One of the clearest teachings in this understanding of the world is the relationship between host and guest. My grandmother invited us to recognize that relationship in the lives of plants and animals.

      A host prepares the place before anyone arrives. A beaver family dams a stream, and the pond becomes a home for fish, frogs, birds and plants. A fallen tree becomes a nurse log, feeding the next generation of seedlings as it returns to the soil.

      A host offers first. A flowering plant sets out nectar. A berry bush ripens fruit. These provisions come in their own season, not whenever a visitor happens to want them.

      A host also makes its presence known. Birdsong, scent and the marks left along a trail tell newcomers that a place is already inhabited. The visitor does not arrive in an empty world.

      The guest has responsibilities too. A guest attends to the season and to what the place can offer. A guest does not assume that everything within reach is theirs to take. A guest leaves something that helps sustain the relationship.

      A bee takes nectar and carries pollen. Read through this teaching, that exchange offers an image of visiting well: receiving a gift while helping the host continue its life.

      Many Indigenous harvesting protocols carry the same ethic into daily practice: ask before taking, take only what is needed, offer thanks, and leave enough for others and for the plant or animal to recover.

      None of this suggests that every relationship in nature is peaceful or generous. These are ways of seeing responsibilities that people can learn to carry.

      Everyone is both

      No being is only a host or only a guest.

      A tree makes room for other life while depending on soil, water, sunlight, fungi, and relationships beyond itself. People, too, may welcome others into their homes while remaining dependent on the larger homeland that sustains them.

      The distinction between host and guest is therefore about roles, not ranks. Everyone receives. Everyone has something to give.

      The question is whether the exchange sustains the place.

      A visitor who takes without restraint leaves less for those who come next. A host who neglects the place has less to offer. Both have responsibilities, and neither can fulfil them alone.

      This is the heart of reciprocity, a principle found across Indigenous philosophies: relationships stay healthy when gifts move in both directions. The Haudenosaunee teaching of the seventh generation extends that exchange across time, asking that decisions made today leave the place well for those not yet born.

      Mutual benefit begins here, with the recognition that different beings carry different gifts and obligations.

      What people carry forward

      My grandmother’s teaching connects these relationships to the ways people meet their neighbours.

      The host prepares a place, offers food and rest, and explains where the visitor has arrived. The guest makes themselves known, explains why they have come, listens to the terms of the visit, and brings something in return. The gift may be material. It may also be labour, knowledge, news, or a commitment to help.

      Nations around the Great Lakes carried this ethic into treaty. The Dish with One Spoon, an agreement among the Haudenosaunee, Anishinaabe and allied Nations, describes shared hunting grounds as a single dish. Everyone eats from it with one spoon, takes only what they need, leaves enough for others, and keeps the dish clean. The Two Row Wampum, between the Haudenosaunee and European newcomers, shows two vessels travelling side by side on the same river, each keeping its own ways and neither steering the other.

      In this understanding, acknowledgement is more than naming the people associated with a territory. It is learning enough about a homeland to behave responsibly within it.

      Whose home is this? What sustains it? What laws and agreements guide our presence? What can we receive, and what must we return?

      These questions make acknowledgement a relationship rather than a recital.

      They also make it diplomatic. A guest who recognizes the host’s homeland recognizes that they have entered a place with its own relationships and responsibilities. A host who welcomes the guest makes room for an encounter governed by those relationships.

      Neither arrives without standing. Neither arrives without obligations.

      Beginning with place

      I write from the shores of the Bay of Quinte. Here, the teaching asks me to begin with the water, the shoreline, and the life they sustain. Before I describe myself, I must attend to where I am.

      That does not make people or history less important. It places them within the homeland that gives them meaning. The people, their laws, their agreements, and their responsibilities all belong to the place.

      In a time of longer fire seasons, troubled waters, and uncertainty about what the next season will bring, this teaching asks something difficult and useful of us: pay attention before you speak.

      An acknowledgement cannot tell the story of a place if the speaker has stopped noticing it.

      The land came first. Beginning there again means learning to name what sustains us, and accepting that what sustains us also asks something of us.

      By Rye Karonhiowanen Barberstock

      Photo by Andrik Langfield on Unsplash

      The post The Land Came First appeared first on Indigenous Climate Hub.

      The Land Came First

      Continue Reading

      Climate Change

      Analysis: Fossil-fuel CO2 emissions set to dip in 2026 as Iran conflict hits oil use

      Published

      on

      Article Contents